Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
IN THE
EDINBURGH
T.
&
T.
CLARK.
38
GEORGE STREET
First Edition
Latest Reprint
1921 1962
MAY IS
Tht; Rights of Translaiion
^964
TO MY WIFE
TASK
PREFACE
WHEN
that
if
in 1896 I
of this
I
was
to
understanding of
Commentary, it was with a clear conviction make any appreciable contribution to the the epistle, it would be by confining myself
which an interpreter might
I decided not to
attempt
an exhaustive study
epistle,
Convinced
New
Testament,
much remained
still
to
of the course of
epistle, I
my
chief atten-
and then
an endeavour to trace
it
its
course of thought
with clearness.
When the study of the religions of the Roman empire, commonly known as the mystery religions, came into prominence, I gave some study to them, with the result that I became convinced that the contribution which a thorough investigation of
would
which such investigation would require. Meantime, a growing sense of the close relationship between
the experiences of the early Christian church, as these are disclosed in the letter,
our
own day
is
passing,
practical value of
and those through which Christianity of had greatly increased my sense of the the letter to the church of to-day, and be-
make
this clear to
my
readers.
vm
Whether
I
PREFACE
have been
justified in
by the apostle to those of our own day, must judge. The choice at any rate was deliberately made and has been persistently followed. Of the lexicographical studies which were made in pursuance of this plan, one, which consumed many months and was extended over years, proved in character and bulk unsuited to be included in this volume, and was published separately under the title. Spirit, Sotd and Flesh: The Usage of Hvevixa^ ^^X^ ^^^ '^dp^ in Greek Writings and Translated Works from the Earliest Period to i^o A. D.; and of their Equivalents in the Hebrew
the problems discussed others
.
.
Old Testament.
Chicago,
191 8.
The other
studies
of
this
this
Com-
mentary the
chief centre of
a goodly
number
express
of those
Fellows of the
who have been studying in my classes, chiefly University of Chicago. To all such I wish to
But
I desire espe-
my
mention Professor Arthur Wakefield Slaten, Ph.D., of the Young Men's Christian Association College in Chicago,
cially to
who
worked with me
in almost
daily fellowship,
and
to
whom
am
and Professor Benjamin Willard Robinson, Ph.D., of the Chicago Theological Seminary, who has generously read the proofs of the book, and made me many
valuable suggestions.
I have used,
The
list
of others, authors I
and colleagues
whom
_ Ernest
D. Burton.
,r.
1920.
CONTENTS
PAGE
ABBREVIATIONS
xi
INTRODUCTION
I.
xvii
II.
xxi
xxi
The
Alternative Opinions
of Opinion
The History
xxiv
Term FaXaxfa
in
xxv
.
D.
Northern Galatia?
xxix
xxix
The Evidence
of Acts i6
and
iS^^
xxx
Paul's
xli
3.
HI.
IV.
xliv
liii
V.
VI.
VII.
Ivii
Ixv
Ixxii
VIII.
The Text
Bibliography
Ixxiv
Ixxxii
IX.
COMMENTARY
APPENDIX
363
INDEXES
I.
523
53^
II.
III.
This Commentary
54o
ABBREVIATIONS.
It is assumed that references to the books of the Bible and the O. T. Apocrypha, and to the classical and Jewish-Greek authors will be selfexplanatory. The notation is that of the standard editions. In the refer-
first
name
refer to the
and
line
ceding the parenthesis refer to the books and sections of the edition
of B. Niese, 7 vols., Berlin, 1887-95, those in parenthesis to the chapter
and
Enghsh
translation.
the figures before the parenthesis denote the sections of the edition of Cohn and Wendland, 6 vols., BerHn, 1896-1915, those in parenthesis the
sections of the edition of Richter, to
which
Yonge's
Enghsh translation correspond. For explanation of the abbreviations employed in the text critical notes and not found in this list the reader is referred to the section on the Text, pp. Ixxivff., and to the works on Textual References to authors, both ancient and modern, Criticism there Hsted. supposed to be easily interpreted by reference to the Bibliography are not
included in this hst.
The
titles of
works infrequently referred to are in list but are printed fully enough for
when
of
Beng.
Bengel.
p. Ixxxiii.
See Bibliography
Ambrst.
=
A.
Ambrosiaster.
D.
Ca.
p.
305
232;
BGU.=
Agyptische
Urkunden
aus
See
Ltft.,
DCB.
ARV. =
Griechische
Urkun-
The Holy
Bible,
Revised,
American
tion.
Standard
Edi-
den I-IV.
Berlin, 1895.
New
See
York, 1901.
Ca.
232;
Ltft.,
Boeckh, C.
/.
G.
Corpus Inscripedidit
Aug.
Aurelius
394.
Augustinus.
p.
tionum
1828-77.
Grcecarum
DCB.
AV.
The Holy
Bible.
Authorised
Bl.-D.
Blass, F.,
Grammatik des
Griech-
Version of 161 1.
neutestamentlichen
isch.
Gottingen,
1896.
BDB. = Brown,
con.
von Albert
De
Brunner, 1913.
xu
ABBREVIATIONS
Burton, Ernest De Witt, Syntax of the Moods and
Tenses in
Dal. IF/.
BMT =
of
Jesus.
New
Third
Testament
edition.
f ca.
Greek.
See
S.
and H.,
p.
c;
Chicago, 1898.
DCB.
DCB. =
Flesh.
Soul,
and
Chicago, 19 1 8.
Butt.
Buttmann,
of the
A.,
A Grammar
H. Thayer.
New
Testament Greek.
J.
E. T. by
Andover, 1873.
Bous.
W. = de
liography, p. Ixxxiv.
Bous. Rel.
d.
Jud.
Bousset, W.,
Dih.Gwt.
=
welt
Dibelius,
Die
Geister-
im
Did.
im Glauben
des Paulus.
neutestamentlichen Zeitalter.
Gottingen, 1909.
Zweite Aufi.
Berlin, 1906,
AtSaxi?) Toiv
Xtov.
BW. = The
BZ.
Cal.
Biblical World.
= =
Biblische Zeitschrift.
Ell.
Ellicott,
C.
J.
Calov.
See
Bibliography,
p. Ixxxiii.
Encyclopedia Biblica.
Calv.
Calvin.
See Bibliography,
Edited by T. K. Cheyne
p. Ixxxiii,
p.
ciii.
and
S.
and H.,
Epiph.
vols.
Cf.
Confer, compare.
=
=
Epiphanius.
f 404.
See
Ch.^P.
ChsLv\es,R.U., Apocrypha
the
DCB.
Erasm.
Est.
and Pseudepigrapha of
Old Testament.
ford, 1913.
2 vols.
Erasmus.
See
See BibliograBibliography,
Ox-
phy,
p. Ixxxiii.
Estius.
Chrys.
=
=
Joannes
See
Chrysostomus.
Ltft., p. 228.
p. Ixxxiii.
t 407-
E. T.
English translation.
Cremer
Euthal.
= Euthalius.
p. 230,
logisches
der
and DCB.
K. F. A. See Bib-
neutestamentlichen Grdcitdt.
Zehnte
beitete
durchgear-
Frit.
Fritzsche,
Auflage herausge-
liography, p. Ixxxiv.
Gild. Syn.
Cyril of Alexandria,
f 444.
See
DCB.
f 386.
from Homer
2 vols.
to
Demosthenes.
Cyr^ =
Cyril of Jerusalem,
New
York, 1900,
See
DCB.
1911.
ABBREVIATIONS
GMT
Kiihner-Gerth
tax of the
Ausfiihrliche
griechischenSprache. Dritte
and
1889.
enlarged.
Grimm = Grimm,
C. L. W., Lexicon
in
vols.
Grceco-Latinum
Libros
1898, 1904.
L.
&
S.
Liddell,
H.
G.,
and
Scott,
Seventh
edition
revised.
Leipzig, 1879.
New
Ln.
York, 1882.
C.,
Grot.
Grotius,
Hugo.
See Bibli-
= Lachmann,
m^ntum
lin,
Novum
et
Testa-
ography,
p. Ixxxiii.
Greece
Latine.
Ber-
WDB. =
1842, 1850.
Ltft.
= =
vols.
New
Hier.
Luth.
M.
p.
See Bibliogra-
Eusebius Hieronymus
rome).
p. 232, 1 420.
phy,
p.
Ixxxiii,
ciii.
and
S.
See
Ltft.,
and H.,
and DCS.
See Bib-
Lxx = The
Hilg.
Hilgenfeld, Adolf.
liography, p. Ixxxiv.
Quotations
edition
of
from the
Introd.
Iren.
3 vols.
Introduction.
t iQO-
Irenseus.
See
DCB.
94.
M. and M.
JBL. = The Journal
erature.
Jelf
of Biblical Lit-
New
Testa-
Jelf,
W.
E.,
Grammar
of the
ment.
1914".
Greek Language.
tion.
Fifth edi-
Mcion.
Oxford, 1881.
fiir protestantise ne
JfpT.
Jahrbuch
New
I.
Testament
Prolego1906.
Theologie.
Vol.
Just. Mart.
Justin Martyr.
Ca.
mena.
Edinburgh,
ISO.
Mey.
Mofif.
= =
Meyer, H. A.
W.
See Bib-
liography, p. Ixxxiv.
Ka.^P.
of the
New
Testament.
Edinburgh and
Tubingen, 1900.
XIV
ms.,
ABBREVIATIONS
mss.
manuscript,
manu-
Patr. Ap.
scripts.
Pelag.
Pelagius.
Ltft.,
See
p.
and H.,
Oecum.
=
S.
Oecumenius.
Tenth cenPollux,
p. ci;
DCB.
tury.
Onow.
OIs.
PRE. =
Real-Encyclopadie
testantise he
fiir
pro-
Theologie
und
A.
Or.
Kirche.
Dritte Auflage,
and DCB.
Preusch.
herausgegeben
von
Hauck, 1896-1913.
Pap. Amh.
2
stdndtgcs
Deutsches
Griechisch-
Handworterbiich
London 1 900-1.
Pap. Gd. Cairo
=
J.
the Cairo
Musetim.
Edited
Chi-
urchristlichen
Giessen, 1910.
Literatur.
by E.
Goodspeed.
cago, 1902.
PThR. =
vieiv.
University
of
Chicago
q. V.
= =
quod
vide,
which
see.
Rad.
Radcrmacher,
bingen, 191 1.
L., Neutesta-
Chicago, 1900.
Greek Papyri in the
meniliche Grammatik.
Tu-
Pap. Lond.
Museum. Vols. I, by F. G. Kenyon; vol. Ill, by F. G. Kenyon and H. I. Bell; vol. IV, by
British
II, edited
Ram. = Ramsay, W. M.
Introd., p. xxiv.
See BibAlso
liography, p. Ixxxvi.
Rob.
Robertson,
Archibald
of the Greek
T.,
H.
Pap. Oxyr.
I. Bell.
London, 1893-
Grammar
1914.
New
1910.
Testament.
New
York,
pyri.
Vols.I-VI,X-XIII,
Ruck.
Ruckert, Leopold
uel.
Imman-
edited
by B.
S. S.
P.
Grenfell
See Bibliography, p.
Bible, Revised.
and A.
IX by A.
Pap.
Tebt.
Ixxxiv.
1898-1919.
OxO.T. 1884.
Vol.
edited
by B.
P.
S.
Grenfell, A. S.
J.
Hunt, and
G. Smyly; vol. II by
B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt,
and H. = Sanday, Wm., and Headlam, A. C, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to tJie Romans. Edinburgh and New York,
1895.
ABBREVIATIONS
Schm.
Schr.
XV
= Theophylactus.
Ca. 1077.
Schmiedel, P.
W.
im
Zeitalter
Thphyl.
== Schiirer,
TR.
=>
schen
Volkes
Christi.
Jesu
Vierte Auf-
lage, 1901-9.
the
modem critical
Sd.
Soden,
von,
Hermann
Die
Freiherr
des
period.
Schriften
Tr,
Tregelles,
Neuen
gabe
Testaments.
Gotu. s.
ment.
London, 1857-79.
tingen, 1902-13.
(Griechisches
HandausNeues
= =
lit
supra, as above.
Testament), 19 13.
Semi.
Semler.
p. Ixxxiii.
See Bibliography,
Vg.
Vulgate,
Bible.
text
of
the
Latin
Sief.
Sieffert,
F.
See Bibliogra-
Victorin.
C.
Marius
A. D.
Victorinus.
phy, p. Ixxxv.
Sl.QiV.
Ca.
360
See Ltft.,
p. 231;
DCB.
Nouns
in
the
Pauline Epistles.
1918.
Chicago,
W. = Winer,
neutestamentlichen
idioms.
Smith,
DB =
Various
and
translations.
WM.
by H. B.
the
preceding
(1867)
by W.
F. Moulton.
SNT. = Die
von
Schriften
Neuen
inburgh, 1882.
Testaments,
J.
herausgegeben
Zweite Auf-
WSchm. =
Winer, G. B. Gramma,
Weiss,
tik, etc.,
u.s.
AchteAuflage
lage.
Gottingen, 1907-8.
neu
bearbeitet
von
I.
P.
Schmiedel.
Th.St.u.Krit.
Theil
Got-
Theologische Studieji
tingen, 1894.
und
Tdf.
Kritiken.
Weizs.
Tischendorf,
Editio
Constantin,
crit.
Zweite
B. 1892.
Aufl.
Freiburg,
Tert.
Tertullian.
tea. 223.
See
Wetstein.
See Bibliogra-
DCB.
Th.
phy, p.
Ixxxiii.
Thayer,
Joseph
Henry,
WH. =
Westcott, B.
F. J. A.,
F.,
and Hort,
Testa-
The
New
I,
New
1886.
Testament.
New York,
f ca.
ment in
vol.
II,
Text;
Thdrt.
Theodoretus.
Introduction and
DCB.
XVI
Wies.
ABBREVIATIONS
=
Wieseler, Karl.
ZntW.
mentliche Wissenschaft.
Ws.
Weiss, Bernhard.
See Bib-
ZwTh. =
Zeitschrift
fur wissenschaft-
liography, p. Ixxxviii.
liche Theologie.
ZkWkL. =
ZhTh.=
Zeitschrift
fiir
historische
Theologie.
Leben,
INTRODUCTION
I.
Greek authors use the terms Ke-Xrot, KeXrat, and TaXarat, Latin authors the similar terms Celtse, Galatae, and Galli, withKeXrot out clear discrimination * In Polybius and Pausanias
and FaXarat are used synonymously, as in Greek writers generally KeXrat and TaKdrac arej Thus Polybius though commonly using the name KeXroL (see 3. 40, 41, 60, 67-74; cf. 3. 59) of the people whom he describes in 3. 37 as occupying the counfrom Narbo to the Pyrenees, yet occasionally calls them country TaXaTta (3. 59). (3. 40; cf. 3. 3), and their Similarly PauIn 3. 62, 65, he uses the adjective raXaruo?. KeXrot and FaXarat interchangeably of the sanias lo^^^- uses Gauls who invaded Greece. Diodorus Siculus, 5. 32^, however,
try
TaXarat
distinguishes
KeXrat
of the south.J
On
FaXarai were etymologically variant forms of the same name or of diverse origin, scholars have been divided, Niese, for
example, identifying them, Contzen,ll Tarn,1f and apparently most other modern philologists regarding them as of diverse
origin.
1' KeAToi: Hdt. 2"; Xen. Hell. 7. 1" Pausan. i< Polyb. 3- 60, etc. KeArai: Strabo, 4Tacit. Takdraa: Pausan. ! *; Polyb. 2. 15. Celtse: Caesar B. G. i. Galatss: Cic. ad Alt., VI s'; Thus Ann. is. Galli: Caesar B. G. i'. Various compounds occur both in Greek and Latin. 32*KeAToAi7vs: Strabo, 4. 6'. KeAroo-Kveai: Strabo, 1.2"; '^kKr,voya\6.Ta.i: Diod. Sic. SGalTaXXoYpaiKoi, VaKKoypaiKia.: Strabo, 2. 5"; 12. 51 (cited by Woodhouse, Encyc. Bib.).
lograecia:
Livy 38"; Gallogrseci; Livy 38". tTarn, Antigonos Gonatas, p. 141, f. n. 11. this passage in Diodorus as late eviJ Niese, art. "Galli" in Pauly-Wissowa, discounts Diodorus is dence. Tarn, op. cit. ibid., takes issue with Niese on this point, holding that Polybius. here quoting Posidonius. Even so, however, the evidence would be later than
S Art.
II
"Galli" in Pauly-Wissowa, init. ^ Op. cit., p. 141Die Wandemng der Kelten, Leipzig, 1861, p. 3** "Les Celtes, les Galates, les Gaulois," in Revue Archlologique, xxx 2 (1875), p. 4/.
xvii
XVlll
INTRODUCTION
it,
tie
Was
of ultimately
common
perhaps
different origin
common
civihsation; or eco-
tribes participating in
a comis
mon
migratory movement?*
the
question,
came
lie
we
are concerned,
and
Of more immediate interest, however, are the eastward movements of the Gauls, which led to the ultimate settlement of a portion of the race in Asia Minor and the establishment of an eastern Gaul in which, or in an extension of which bearing its name, Paul was in process of time to preach the gospel and found churches. The stages of the process seem to have been
as follows:
1.
Under a
chieftain
whose name or title was Brennus the b. c. 390 and captured Rome, although
the siege successfully (Polyb.
2.
itself resisted
18).
The attack upon Rome seems to have been a punitive expedition, and when it was completed and indemnity extorted from the Romans the invaders retired (Livy s^^^"} Polyb. 2. 19-21). Polybius calls these Gauls raXarat and KeXrot {cf. 2. 22/.),
their
2.
country FaXartfa.
new
overcrowded Gauls. Routed by the ^Etolians at Delphi, the Gauls withdrew from Greece and, joining anfor the
* Ripley, Races of Europe, pp. 124-128; 470-475; 490-492; McCulloch, art. "Celts" in
Hastings. Diet. Rel. and Eth.
home
INTRODUCTION
Other detachment of the same general stream of eastward
ing Celts, invaded Asia
Tarn, op.
cit.
XIX
mov-
Minor (Livy
38^).
Gallic attack
incorrect.
upon Delphi
pp. 439 f. holds that the common treatment of the as constituting the invasion of Greece is
He
movement
of the Gauls, of
He
Koan
which distinguishes
between two divisions of the Gauls who invaded Greece, one of which attacked Delphi. Tarn admits, however, that the events were very early confused. The source for our knowledge of the details of these
events
3.
is
lo^sff-,
At
first
about 239 B, c, defeated by Attalus I, king of Pergamum. As a result of this defeat they v;ere confined to a territory
somewhat north and east of the centre, bounded on the north by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, on the east by Pontus, on the south by Cappadocia and Lycaonia, and on the west by Phrygia, and traversed by the rivers Halys and Sangarius, In 189 b, c, this eastern Gaul, called by the Greeks Galatia, or Gallograecia, shared the fate of the rest of Asia Minor and came under the power of the Romans, its status being that of a dependent kingdom (Strabo, 12.5^). 4, In the latter half of the first century b. c. Galatia was
materially increased in extent.
On
c, 40,
Deiotarus, gave a
portions of Pisidia
his
and Phrygia,
tian realm to
Amyntas, who
dominion.
phylia.
In the same year he also received a part of Pamunite these two separated territories, Galatia and
To
Phrygio-Pisidia,
Amyntas was
it.
siderable portion of
Ramsay, Com. on
pp. 42 /.
J'.;
Perrot,
De
II, esp.
XX
5.
INTRODUCTION
Amyntas was killed in the war with kingdom was converted into a Roman province, but the part of Pamphylia which had belonged to him was restored to that province, and Cilicia Tracheia was given to Archelaus. In b. c. 5 a large part of Paphlagonia was added to Galatia, and at some time before, or in, the reign of Claudius (41-54 A. d.), the territory of the Homonades.*
in b. c. 25
his
When
the
Homonades,
rise to
The former
tus,
is
and Ptolemy:
Pliny, Hist. Nat. 5. 146, 147 (42): Simul
dicendum videtur
et
de
quondam
eius
Gordium.
Cappadocia a septentrione et solis partem occupavere Tectosages ac Toutobodiaci, Et gentes quidem hae. Populi vero ac tetrarchiae omnes numero CXCV. Oppida Tectosagum Ancyra, Trogmorum Tavium,
Praetenditur
ortu,
regionem Trogmi.
cujus
uberrimani
Tolistobogiorum Pisinuus.
Attingit Galatia et
Pamphyliae Cabaliam
Oroandicum
Pisidia2
2^:
Tacitus, Hist.
Milyas qui circa Barim sunt et Cyllanicum et tractum, item Lycaoniae partem Obizenen. Galatiam ac Pamphyliam provincias Calpurnio
et
Ann.
133*:
Et
Cappay.ai
dociamque Ptolemy
dilectus.
5^:
'H
xoO
ra>.aT{a
xeptoptXsTat
Ila[L(fuXiq: (kizh
elpT,[ii\>ou
xpbq
-tq
dxb
bl i.^ocToikdy
KaxxaSoxtai;
ixb
TOU
eJpY][JLevou
xeparoq
;ji%pc tou
n6vTOU.
I.
It appears also in
Boeckh, C.
G. 3991:
'Ex^Tpoxov Tt^ept'ou KXauBfou Kaiaapoq Se^aaToiJ Fepixavixou xal Nipiovoq KXauSfou Kaiaapoq Se^aaxou Feptxavcxou PaXaTixfii; exapxetaq Tbv eauToCi euepYiTTjv
xal xxtaTTjv.
* Encyc. Bib. vol.
II, col. isgi.
INTRODUCTION
XXI
On
Memnon, a now
vuv
by the
auToIq dTzexi^iyovxo
^i<xvel[iavzeq.
rfjv
FaXaTtav
xa>.ou[J.evTr5V,
elq xpsXq
[lolpocq tkutt^v
Other inscriptions
See Perrot, op.
pp. 184/., and
cit.,
bear no
Cf. Sief.
et
Kom.
Eccl.
p. ii; contra
Zahn, Introd.
Ram.
in Stud. Bib.
IV
26-38.
II.
facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs respecting gradual extension of the term FaXarta over larger areas, the show that in the period when Paul was writing his letters the
The
territory,
the
control before
the incoming whole of the territory which constituted the Roman province of Galatia, including both the district just named and the adjacent portions of Lycaonia, Pisidia, and Phrygia. These
Roman
may have
in either sense.
In
itself
which sense he employed the word would not of necessity determine the location of the churches of Galatia to which our
epistle
was addressed,
the province.
of
But
it
and partly in the other, would be in happens that the statements of the Book
Acts concerning the apostle's missionary journeys in Asia relation of these statements to the evidence of
if
we assume
word Galatia
XXU
In Acts, chaps.
phylia, Pisidia,
INTRODUCTION
13, 14, it is related that
and Lycaonia, and founded churches in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (13^^- ^* 14^- ^* '^^-'^*). This journey and these churches were evidently in the province of Galatia,
but in
its
which was known as Galatia before the days of Amyntas. There is no intimation that at this time Paul entered the northern portion of the province, and such an extension of his journey northward is practically excluded by Acts 1423-26. if at any time he founded churches in this latter region, it was doubtless neither at this time, nor on w^hat is commonly called
his third missionary journey (Acts 18^^),
in
Whether
is
probable that
later.
What
is
that
if
by Paul
in the northern,
more
strictly
and
province.
For the
letter
itself,
especially 3^-^
all
^isfi.^
clearly
founded in the
same
two groups
later.
of churches,
This
were churches
in Galatia in
been included
But
in that event,
Galatia in
the
Roman,
In short,
sense,
there were
any churches
in northern Gala-
was addressed
to
hand,
INTRODUCTION
XXlll
tain that there were churches in the southern, non-Gallic portion of the province, these
apostle's phrase,
in the
"the churches
same
now
themselves excluded.
Indeed,
when
the
was written;
for,
in existence, they
must
in the phrase,
"the churches
of Galatia,"
but, on the other hand, could not have been included along
latter.
On
and the
evi-
dence of the letter that "the churches of Galatia" to which it was addressed constituted one group founded on the same general occasion,
we must
was addressed
to churches in
make our
founded churches
on
them and them only, using the term Galatia in its older, ethnographic sense; and (b) that he founded no churches in northern Galatia, and that he adjourney, and addressed the letter to
and
political
There is indeed a third possibility, viz., that he founded churches in northern Galatia on his second missionary journey, but that he wrote
his letter before founding these churches,
and addressed
it
to the
But
two
show
its
improbability.
It
is
incumbent upon
us,
two
term Galatia,
in northern Galatia.
XXIV
jB.
INTRODUCTION
The History
of Opinion.
it will
be well
of the
on the matter
Kom.
p. 12), and this view has been adopted in modern times by Neander, Pflanzung u. Leitung, 1838; Conybeare and Howson, St.
Paul, 1851, and various later editions; Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, 1875; Farrar, St. Paul, 1880; Holsten, Evangelium des Paulus, 1880; H. J.
XVIII, 1892; Godet, Introduction, 1894; Julicher, Einleitung, 1894S i9o6; Chase in Expositor, Ser. IV, vols. VIII, IX; Mommsen, "Die Rechtsverhaltnisse des Apostels Paulus," in ZntW. 1901, p. 86; Schmiedel in Encyc. Bib. vol. II, cols. 1596-1616; Steinmann, Die Ahfassungs-
Der Leserkrcis des Galaterhriefs 1908; Mofand by the following commentators on the epistle: Hilgenfeld, 1852; Wieseler, 1859; Meyer, 1841 and various later editions; Lightfoot, 1865 and various later editions; Ellicott,
zeii
fatt,
Introduction, 191
1;
1865; Alford, 1849S 1871'; Sieffert, 1899"; Yindlsiy, in Exp. Grk. Test.
1910
first
proposed by
J. J.
Schmidt, rector
whom
J.
D. Michaelis combated
(See Zahn, Einleit.^ I 130, E. T. p. 183, but for 1199 read 1788); then advocated more at length by Mynster in Einleitung in den Brief an
die Galater in his Kleinere Schriften, 1825;
by Bottger,
Beitrdge, 1837;
It
when Perrot advocated it in his De Galatia Provincia Romana, 1867, and since his day has been defended by
Kenan,
St.
tamentliche Zeitgeschichte ;
Ecclesiastica,
vol.
Roman Empire, 1893^ 1895*; Studia Biblia IV, 1896; Historical Commentary on Galatians,
IX; Gifford,
in
1900,
and various
essays, especially in
Clemen, "Die Adressaten des Galaterbriefs," in ZivTh. XXXVII 396-423; also Paulus, vol. I, 1904; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, 1897; Askwith, The Epistle to the Galatians: Its Destination and Date, 1899;
Bartlet, Apostolic Age,
vol.
col.
1899;
J.
Weiss,
art.
" Kleinasien," in
PKE.
X; Bacon,
Introd. to
N. T. 1900; Woodhouse
1592/.; Zahn, Einleitung"^, 1900, E. T., 19091, 1917'; Kommentar, 1905; Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, 191 1; Emmet, in The
INTRODUCTION
Moflfatt
XXV
Of the above discussions those of Lightfoot, Chase, Schmiedel, and on the North-Galatian side, and those of Ramsay, Woodhouse, Zahn, Clemen, and Lake on the South-Galatian side, are most worthy
of consultation.
From
we
return to con-
on which a decision of the question must be based, and under the two heads named above.
sider the evidence
C.
I.
PauVs Use
is
of the
Term ToKaTia
Ttjs
The
letter
FaXar/a?.
It
is
either to name the individual church by the city in which it was located or by the person in whose house it met, or grouping them together, to follow the Roman political divisions, and to
by the name
of the
Roman
province in
i^
2,
which
I
it
belonged.
Cor. i^^
See,
Cor.
i2 2
on the one hand, i Thes. i^ 2 Thes. Rom. 16^- ^ i Cor. 16"^ Col. 4^^ Phm.
Indeed,
it
tion of churches,
seems to be Paul's habit not simply in the designabut in general, to use the geographical terms
Thus he
uses
names
Rome, and
Roman
It
provinces,
Judasa,
Syria,
Cihcia,
Asia,
Macedonia,
and
This
by
is
Sief.
may
unambiguously ethnographic and non-political, and of any clear case of the employment of a term of double meaning in the non-political sense leaves little ground for this hypothesis. To this uniform employment of Roman terms Judaea can not be cited as an exception. For throughout the period in which those letters of Paul were written in which he mentions Judaea (see i Thes. 2" Gal. i"
XXVI
INTRODUCTION
2 Cor. I" Rom. i5")> Judaea was a Roman province under procurators, and though it sustained in this period as in the years 6-41 A. d. a kind of dependence on the province of Syria (Schiirer, Gesch. d. Jiid. Vj,
vol. I, p. 564,
E. T. I
ii
165)
it
was
own governor. See more fully in detached note on Judaea, Nor is it probable that Illyricum in Rom. 15'' is an excepPP' 435 ftion. For in Paul's day this term was the name of a Roman province,
under
its
extending northwest along the Adriatic from the river Drilon to the
Arsia (^Mommsen, Provinces of the
Roman
vol. ed.)
cum,"
in Encyc. Bib.
and IIDB
2161,
and
to its border
Paul
may
II, col.
we have no other evidence that Paul ever went into the province of Illyricum, we must assume that by Illyricum he meant lUyris Grc-eca, that portion of Macedonia which adjoins
"into," and that because
Illyricum on the southeast,
neither does [x^xP' naturally
is,
For
if
mean
"into," nor
is it
explained why,
Paul meant
Illyris,
'IXXuptx<5v;
nor have we
any more evidence that Paul went into or to Illyris Graeca, than we have respecting Illyricum, this passage furnishing all that we possess
in either case.
In I Cor. i6, which is of peculiar interest because of its use of the very name with whose usage we are concerned, there is a reference to
the collection of
which is also and in Rom. 1$-^. From these passages it is clear that during the two years or so next preceding the writing of the Epistle to the Romans and Paul's last visit to Jerusalem,
for the Christians of Jerusalem,
money
spoken of in
2 Cor.,
chaps. 8, 9,
he gave much attention to the gathering of gifts for the poor Christians of Jerusalem from among his Gentile churches. The Corinthian passages
show that
of his fellow-missionaries,
and Acts
gifts
came.
Now
it is
significant that
whenever
g'Rom. 15=^ and in such way as to imply that he made the province the unit and pitted the churches of one province against those of another in friendly rivalry. This sug-
Cor. 16'
is itself
a province-name.
It does not,
indeed, exclude the possibility that in Galatia there were two groups cf
But independently
and Acts
of that question,
it
Cor.
d>^^--\
esp. -,
And
this in turn
INTRODUCTION
confirms the view that Paul's use of terms
the names mentioned in Acts
that as he
20*,
is
XXVll
exclusively
i
Roman.
For
compared with
had gathered the money by provinces, so he selected the who were to accompany him to Jerusalem on the same basis. In that case Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, and probably Luke himself, represented Macedonia. The absence of
is
it
has
is
Cor.
i6''
*,
or possibly taking
it
in the sense
which they had the discernment to recognise to be his real thought, designated Paul as their representative. Tychicus and Trophimus are the delegates from Asia, and Gains and Timothy from Galatia.
But
is
the churches of
Galatia in
Cor. 161
means those
both northern and southern Galatia, but in either case improbable. Of the three hypotheses, then, (a) that "the churches of Galatia," in I Cor. i6' are the churches of northern Galatia, the name being used
ethnographically;
(b)
is
churches were of two groups, those ot northern Galatia and those of southern Galatia, and (c) that the term is used provincially and the churches are those of southern Galatia, there being none in northern
Galatia, the third
is
The
is
first
not
only makes the use of the term different from that which
Paul, but
is
usual with
by The
second
is
of these objections
The
third
is
consistent with
the evidence.
The evidence
is,
therefore, decidedly
more favourable to a uniformly Roman use of geographical terms by the apostle and the view that by Galatia he means both in I Cor. 16^ and Gal. i^, the Roman province, than to a mixed usage such as is found, for example, in Acts.
This judgment
of
is
somewhat confirmed by
Pet. i^
Galatia being
all
and Bithynia,
which are provinces, is itself presumably the name of a province, and there is a certain measure of probability that the author of this letter, who gives evidence of acquaintance with the ideas of the apostle
Paul and probably knew of his
Galatia.
letters,
knew
also
what he meant by
But
this argum.ent is
XXVIU
It is
still
INTRODUCTION
further
The
extension of a
name
to
names
is
common
historical
phenomenon.
by a
by growth and
is
incorporation.
precisely the
Now
in such cases
that
it is
name
that
The names
of
official
or unofficial designations of
new
whose name has been extended over the larger area either retains no distinctive name or acquires a new one. Thus, when the name France, which formerly designated a comparatively small area around Paris, was gradually extended over the whole kingdom of the Capetian kings, the original France came When Brandenburg and Prussia to be known as lie de France.
(Borussia)
name
and the intervening territory as West Prussia. As the names of London, New York, Boston, Chicago, have been extended to include the suburbs, the latter have retained their names as official or unofficial designations, but the original territory has either had no It can not, indeed, distinctive name, or has acquired some new name.
sia,
cities,
is
by a
certain
now
increase
Where changes in the name are frequent and in and now decrease, there is a
different senses
term
which he
with
its
is
at the
moment
speaking.
'louBac'c:
discussion of the usage of Josephus, pp. 435 /. In respect to Galatia there was, from 189 b. c. to the time of Paul,
for the
pp. xlxff.,
most part, only extension of the term. For fuller and literature there referred to. From the year 25
is
life,
details sec
b. c. to the
TaXoczia
official
designation
Roman province;
by
confined
Attalus, king of
which the Gauls had been Pergamum, about 240 b. c. and the terriDurviz., Lycaonia, Pisidia, and part of Phrygia. whole lifetime, viz., from 5 b. c, it had included a
decisive, and, in
INTRODUCTION
XXIX
view of the evidence cited above on pages xx /., showing that in the case of the term VaXaxia the more extended, poHtical usage did not wholly supersede the older, narrower, ethnographic usage, they are of
value only as somewhat confirming the probability that the wider and
later usage
It has
Mommsen
that Paul could not have addressed the inhabitants of the cities
3\ but that the term necessarily designates inhabitants of Galhc Galatia. The argument perhaps assumes a greater difference between the populations of northern and southern Galatia respectively than actually existed. Both were doubtless of
very
regions.
tor,
(See Rendall,
elements in both
Paul," in Exposi-
IV, vol. DC, pp. 254/., esp. 256/.) Nor does it seem possible to name any other term which would be incluSer.
sive
enough
If
on
members by any
D.
unfortunately,
of the
of significance of Acts.
Book
In Gal.
tians
on the on
first
Paul says that he preached the gospel to the Galaoccasion {ro irporepov) because of a weakness
of the flesh.
of to irporepov (see
more
5t'
fully
4^^), it is clear
evangelisation
the
in
XXX
INTRODUCTION
that he was obliged for his health's sake to visit a country which otherwise he would not have visited at that time, and
that in either case he availed himself of the opportunity to
deliver his Christian message to the inhabitants of the region.
same verse with its reference to that in them implies that the illness was of a more or less repellent nature, and that, even if it occurred before he entered Galatia and was the occasion of his going there, it continued while he was there. If the churches to which he was writing were those of southern Galatia, the illness here referred to must have occurred in Pamphylia or at Pisidian Antioch on his first missionary journey (Acts 13^^' ^*). Ram.
latter part of the
The
his flesh
which was a
trial to
has
made
this reason
sought the
work
Pamphylia or pushing on into Asia, as he had intended It is perhaps equally possible that having gone to Pisidian Antioch with the intention of going to Asia and being detained there by illness, he abandoned for the time his plan of entering Asia, and turned eastward into the cities of Lycaonia, If the churches were in northern Galatia he must have fallen ill at Pisidian Antioch on his second missionary journey or 'at some place in that vicinity, and been led to betake himself to northern Galatia; or having already, for some other reason, gone into northern Galatia from Antioch or Iconium, with the intention of passing through, he must have become ill there, and in either case must have used the period of his detention in preachin
to do.
The
Acts
will
Taken by
itself it
South-Galatian view.
2.
The evidence
of
made of Acts above to show that by Paul were either in southern Galatia not both. The Acts evidence must now
be examined m.ore
fully.
INTRODUCTION
In Acts i6^ we read:
^i^rfKdov he rrjv
XXXi
^mpaVy KioKvBevres
Trjp
virb
Kara
Trjv
Mvaiav
eirelpa^ov els
Trvevixa.
^idwLav
TvopevSrjvai
avrovs to
'It; croO.*
In
had
their
visited
Derbe and
the
Timothy,
cities, V.5
v.'*
went on
way through
and increased in number. Inasmuch as Paul's plan, as was to visit the brethren in the cities wherein he and Barnabas had previously preached, and as in 16^ they were moving westward through the southern part of the provfaith
set forth in 15^^,
ince of Galatia,
it is
v.'
are Iconium
and Antioch, and that "the churches" of v.^ are the churches of those cities. A visit to Iconium is, indeed,
v.^.f
almost implied in
The most obvious and, indeed, only natural explanation of the phrase tt^v ^pvylav Kal TaXaTiKrjp %ft)paz^ in v.^ is that ^pvyiap and TakarLKrjp are both adjectives and both limit 'Xoipo.v. Geographical names ending in -ta were originally employed as adjectives, and their customary use as nouns with
an
article
preceding
is
with x^pa.
*
The presence
the text adopted
an adjective with an
al.
article
The above
al.
is
by Tdf.
WH.
fit^A^ov
al.
is
the reading of
5i6A9dvTes
is
NABCD
al.""
the reading
Ltft. adopts the latter reading on the ground that the open to suspicion as an attempt to simplify the grammar of a sentence which is rendered awkward by the accumulation of participles. But it is not certain that the scribal mind did not work in the reverse way, and against this doubtful probability the strong preponderance of external evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt. Ramsay's adoption of SieA.floi'Tes in Si. Paul, p. 195, after rejecting it in Church in the Rom. Emp.*
of
HLP
indicative
is
evidence by theory.
laei/
Professor Chase, in Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. VIII, p. 408, contends that
oiiv of
v.
and that the paragraph properly begins with v.^, or at least that there is a close connection between these two verses. But this contention can not be maintained, fiev oCv may introduce the concluding clause of a paragraph without reference to any Si in the following sentence. See Th. under /aeV, II 4. The instances which Chase himself cites, taken together, make against his view. Nothing, therefore, can be deduced from this either way. V. may begin a new paragraph, as in RV., indeed, probably does so, and this v. may, so far as ft.ev ovv is concerned, be a repetition of preceding verses. But that the paragraph begins here does not prove that it is a repetition.
correlative with Se of v.*,
XXXU
before
it
INTRODUCTION
and the word %ft)pa after it almost of necessity marks word ending in -tct as an adjective and the of the words ^pvylav and VaKaTLKriv by /cat, with the
one only, implies that the region desigis
the intervening
joining
nated by %<pa
it is
and Galatian. In what sense was inhabited throughout by a mixed Phrygian- Galatian population, or that it was in one sense (e. g. ethnographically) Phrygian, and in another (e. g.
one, Phrygian
it
one physiographic
composed of two parts politically or ethnographically, Phrygian and Galatian respectively, is not decisively indicated. The unity which is implied may even be only that of the journey referred to, the two districts constituting one in the mind
region,
The contention
of
is
limited
by
is
Vaka.xiy.-ip
by Acts shown to be
is
where 4>puYta
so used
nor by Acts
iS^^; for,
it is,
be inferred that
is
it is
ig'^i,
SteX6(jv tt)v
both
words in
-ta
may
be used sub-
stantively,
and show
that,
when two
by
is
xa{
and the
may be
only that of
the itinerary, they carry no implication respecting the grammatical construction of such a phrase as that of 16 ^
Ltft.
On
in
it is
not of
in
Acts
is
ly^^,
Such a meaning
Ram.'s contention 'that the fact that these words are in the plural makes the example and his demand for an instance with *tAc)o-o<^09 in the singular are not convincing. A philosopher can not, indeed, be one half Epicurean and one half Stoic, but a group of philosophers'may be so, and so, also, may a country be one half Phrygian and one half Galatian. An example of a collective singular noun with two adjectives would, indeed, be more pertinent, but a plural of persons is more like a singular geographical term than the singular of
irrelevant
INTRODUCTION
nor
cit.,
XXXIU
Chase, op.
the point
Ram. have
states the
cited
any examples
"From
of view of the writer they are invested with a kind of unity sufficiently
defined
by the
is,
examples of phrases similar in structure to the phrases which Acts employs here and in iS^^. An examination of all the passages in which
Josephus
pression
uses
the
words
'louBata,
'ISoufxata,
Saixapfa,
Sa^iiapfTtq,
VaXCkoLla, or
r(]q
Ilepata, fails
The
ex-
in Lk. 31 [has
been
appealed to on both
knowledge of the
but apparently can not, for lack of exact Luke's day, be counted
on
either side.
See Geo.
Adam
Smith
IX,
p. 231.
It
and Galatian
text.
also
The
possible hypotheses
may
be conveniently presented
by considering the various views of modern scholars. The following writers suppose that the phrase refers to, or includes, northern Galatia, and that on the journey churches
were founded in northern Galatia.
Ltft. takes ^puyfav and PaXaTcxTQv as adjectives both limiting x&gav and both used ethnographically. First translating the phrase, "the Phrygian and Galatian country" and interpreting it as designating "some region which might be said to belong either to Phrygia or
he presently translates
Phrygia or Galatia.
it
by
Phrygians but subsequently occupied by Gauls" {Com. p. 22). The actual journey Ltft. supposes to have extended to Pessinus, Ancyra,
and Tavium.
The grammatical
exegesis
is
is
in
it was and Galatian in its later, follows from the grammatical premise or from any other evidence. To establish Ltft.'s opinion it would be necessary to show from the context that the only Phrygian and Galatian country that meets the conditions of Acts i6 is that to which he refers the phrase; or at least that no other so well meets the conditions. This is not the case, but on the
Phrygian in
its
original population
ff-
contrary,
his
interpretation
v.^,
XXxiv
e>.66vxeq
INTRODUCTION
Be
xardt
rJ)v
Mua(av eTusfpa^ov dq t-?)v Bi0uv{av xopeuOiivat. two verses represent the missionaries as turning back from Asia to pass through the Phrygian and Galatian countrv, and in the course of that journey reaching a point at which they were over against Mysia with Bithynia as an alternative destination. But a journey from Pisidian Antioch to Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium would at no point have brought the travellers "over against Mysia," in the most probable sense of that phrase, viz., at a point where Mysia lay on a line at right angles with the direction in which they were trav-
Taken
together, the
elling,
i. e.,
facing
it.
Even
if
"passed through the Phrygian and Galatian country" be supposed, as is very improbable, to refer to a journey into the Phrygian and
tion,
Galatian country and out again in approximately the reverse direcsay from Antioch northeast to Tavium or Ancyra, and westward
to Dorylaion or Nakoleia, they could not be said at
any time
to
have
come
xaxdc
Muai'av,
would have been facing Mysia, and at no point over against it. At e. g., they would have been xard:
Nor can
xaT(4*
be taken in
is it
its
occasional
Nor
4" considered above. Was northern Galatia a place to which a sick man would go from Pisidian Antioch for his health? Or if Paul is supposed to have been passing through northern Galatia and to have been detained there by illness,
what was his destination? Is it likely that with Paul's predilection for work in the centres of population he would have planned to pass
through northern Galatia without preaching for the sake of reaching Paphlagonia or Pontus?
of the
Acts"
whom,
his
also,
Wendt
editions
of
Apostclgeschichte,
<tgu^iay
xal
xwpav as meaning "Phrygia and the Galatian region," and finds the two districts thus referred to in the country between the cities of Lycaonia and Pisidia, which Paul was leaving behind,
FaXaTtx'Jjv
Between these cities of the south and Bithynia on the north. and Bithynia, Chase says "districts known as Phrygia and Galatia bent their "Forbidden to turn westward, the travellers lie," steps northward, passing along the road, it seems likely, which led through Phrygia to Nakoleia. At this point they turned aside and
.
On
also Blass
on Acts
16' (cited
& S. Kar6. B. I 3, and cf. Hdt. i'; Thuc. 6."<; Acts 27', but by Ram., art. "Mysia" in HDB). On /cara, meaning "oppoTheb. 505; Xen. Bell. 4*. For the meaning "at" or "near" see
INTRODUCTION
jntered the Galatian district on the east.
XXXV
We may
conjecture that
to
fails
do
justice
By
made somewhat
less glar-
To
have omitted the reference to the Galatian region in v.^ and after v.^ have inserted a statement to the effect that they_^entered Galatia and again returning passed by Mysia, etc. The view also encounters the difficulty that it finds no probable place for the illness which became
the occasion of the preaching in Pessinus.
Sief.
TtxV
xoypa^
(Kom.^, pp. 9-17, esp. 15) interprets t'^jv 4>puYcav xal FaXaof Acts 16 as designating the country northeast of
and supposes that the journey here spoken of probDagh and brought the apostle The churches of Galatia to Pessinus via Kinnaborion and Ammorion. he would locate in Pessinus, Germa, and neighbouring places. Schm. (Encyc. Bib. vol. II, col. 1600, 1606/.) and Moff. {Introd. pp. 92-95) adopt substantially the same view though with less specific definition of the route and location of the churches.
Pisidian Antioch
The
Ram.
is
so,
Church in
et
the
Roman
Eccl.
IV
56;
on the diversity
vv.'*-
not
v.
The
further objection to his view that the remainder of v.^, "having been
on the borders of Asia, Ram. seeks to obviate by supposing xwXuGsvTsq to be a participle of subsequent action, referring to an event which took place after the journey through the Phrygian and Galatian country. Later Greek, in particular the second half of Acts, seems to furnish examples of an aorist participle standing after the principal
XXXVl
INTRODUCTION
But
example
of this rather rare usage.
of
it,
two
classes:
approximating
while not
is
denoting
So,
e. g.,
Acts
xaTTjvTTQaav,
intimately
associated
li--?)
with
it
as its
is
purpose.
Simi-
larly, in Test.
XII
Pair. Reub. 3,
d^J^atxsvoq
but is its immediate consequence. perhaps not certain, case of similar character
exsvOst,
A
is
though
found
in Jos. Contra
Ap. I" (7), auYypd:(];avTsq. (b) Instances in which the participle is far removed from the verb, and, the complications of the sentence obscuring the relation of the different parts of the sentence to one another, an additional fact is loosely added at the end by an aorist participle. Examples of this form are found in Acts 23" 24". In Acts i6, on the other hand, we have neither form. The sentence is short and uninvolved, but the action denoted by the participle, if subsequent to that of the verb, is not involved in it as purpose or result, but marks a distinctly new and important stage of the narrative.
When
vv.*'
to these considerations as
it is
of
xtoXu6^vTs<;
taking
as parenthetical,
and the
first
view as a whole compels Taking vv.^- ' in their obvious sense as referring to a journey beyond Lystra, v. as an addition to what has already been said, and the participle in what is in this connection its equally obvious
of these vv., the weight of objection to the
its rejection.
is
self-consistent
of
and simple.
improbabilities.
by
Gifford (op.
cit.
ex-
the
present writer,
itself possible,
viz., that while the supposed grammatical usage is and Ram.'s view can not be said to have "shipwrecked on the rock of Greek grammar" (as Chase affirms), the present passage can not be regarded as an example of that usage.
T-f)v
Muat'av in v.' as
Mysia,"
i.
*BMT
p. 861.
14s;
cf.
Rob.
189,
For exx.
Test.
BMT,
IV
firaivrjaa^;
XII
Patr.
Reub.
his
eKeyxOeii
(Migne.
ered";
col. 76):
"He makes
approach as a dragon, his identity being afterwards discovquoted by Routh, Reliquics Sacrce, I 161, en-ire^eVToj.
That the exx. of this usage some later than N. T., does
some being
earlier,
INTRODUCTION
poses the phrase
frontier of
XXXVll
the course which the travellers were up to that point pursuing, supx'fjv <S>puYtav Val raXaTtx.-?)v x'^ga^ to designate the Phrygia and Galatia (apparently taking the latter term as the name of the province), and to refer to the country between Pisidian Antioch and the point at which the road to Troas branches from the
This view
is
similar to that of
it
Chase as respects the route followed, differing, however, in that does not assume a journey eastward to Pessinus and the founding
churches.
of
The principal difficulty with Gifford's suggestion is that drawn from Antioch to Nakoleia apparently lies so far from the Galatian border that the country through which one would pass would be much more naturally called simply ^puytav. Yet it is, perhaps,
a
line
unknown
to us,
make
this expression
wholly natural.
Zahn
and
his
nated.
and to interpret FaXaxcxV x^pav as indicating that Paul companions only touched upon a part of the region so desigThis interpretation is manifestly untenable on grammatical
grounds.
The
As
Zahn pro-
poses the view that the article belongs to both nouns, and the whole
Such a jourGalatia, both terms being ethnographically understood. ney starting from Antioch would, perhaps, include Amorion, Pessinus, Germa, and Nakoleia or Dorylaion. Einleitung, I 136; E. T. I 187/., See also Moff. Introd. pp. 92/. Such an esp. x^g fin.; Com., p. 16.
interpretation
tionable.
is
grammatically sound and otherwise entirely unobjecGifford's, it accounts for the use of
PaXaT'.x-Jjv xi^gca in
was speaking
The Acts
named
in 16.
is
Indeed the
knew
ful
of
no evangehsing, or at
least of
(v.^) till
ceived at Troas
when they
XXXVlll
INTRODUCTION
way open
to them.
Certainly the
vv.^- ^*
churches.
but
it
whether Zahn
is
the journey
much
as Moflf. Sief.
and Schm.
iS^^ must be considered. This sentence reads: diep'^ofxevos Kade^rjs ri^v VoKariKrjv X^P^^ '^cil ^pvytaVj ar-qpi^wv ivdvTas rovs jJLadrjrds.
same
and looking upon the confirmation of the dison the journey mentioned in i6^ the It must be questioned whether apostle founded churches. There is, indeed, a preeither of these assumptions is sound. sumption in favour of the view that two phrases employing exactly the same terms (though in different order) and standing in the same author, use the individual terms in the same sense. But there is distinctly less probability that the two phrases as a whole mean the same thing, for the change of
tion of approach,
ciples as evidence that
order
may
itself
be
is
significant.
Nor
is
it
difference in order
tion of journey.
due simply to the difference in the direcFor if, as we have maintained above, both
limiting
^pvjLav and TaKaTLKtjj^ are adjectives we should expect here rrjv TaKaTiKrji'
x^P^^ '^^ i6^, ^pvyCav ^copai^ if the two expressions were intended to denote the same territory traversed in opposite directions.* The probability is therefore
Kal
*
Mt. 24" shows, indeed, that ^pvyiav may be an adjective limiting X'"P*'. despite But such an order is apparently poetic or rhetorical and not likely to be found The examples cited by Ram. St. Paul, p. 211, are not The first one is a case of distributive apposition, the general term prereally parallel cases. ceding the noun and specific terms following it. The other passages are not examples of
its position.
two adjectives limiting the same noun, one preceding the noun with the
following
article
it
article,
the other
without the
article,
but of a
series of
and
INTRODUCTION
that ^pvylav
as in
1 6^,
XXXIX
of course, clearly here, single
is
a noun.
VaKariKrjv
is,
article is
Where, then, are these two regions which were traversed in this one V." names Antioch of Syria as the point of departure. Chap. 191 names Ephesus as the point of arrival. Between these two extremes, Paul has passed through the Galatian country and Phrygia. Whether "the upper country" (dtvoxsptxa f-ipr]) referred to in 19^ is the same as the Galatian region and Phrygia, being referred to here resumptively, or the territory between Phrygia and Ephesus, is not
journey?
It
wholly certain, nor particularly important for our present purpose. is generally and probably rightly understood of the highlands of
It is evident that the writer
has not given a complete itinerary, but has only mentioned some points in which he was specially interested. If, as on his previous
journey, Paul went entirely
must have passed through the Thence he might, indeed, as Schm. But Schm.'s reason suggests, have gone north through Cappadocia. for this route, that if he had gone through Cilicia the narrative would by
land, he
have spoken
ing.
is
not convinc-
It
is
certainly as probable,
not more
so,
through Cilicia as far as Tarsus, thence through the Cilician Gates to the point at which the roads branch, one arm going westward to
Lycaonia, and the other northward through Cappadocia.
From
is
He may have
taken the
This
had on the previous journey founded churches in these cities would naturally call. Emerging from the Galatian country he would come into Phrygia and so through the mountains of the eastern part of the province of Asia to Ephesus. On the other hand, he might have left the great western road soon after passing through the Cilician Gates and travelling via Tyana and the road south of Eake Tatta (or possibly via Iconium) have come to Pessinus in the western part of old Galatia and so on through Phrygia Such a route could hardly have been dictated solely by to Ephesus. a desire to reach Ephesus, since it was far from being the shortest or In this case we may with Moff. suppose that "the disciples" easiest. are those in the churches founded on the previous journey, or with Zahn that he had founded no church and "all the disciples" are the
scattered Christians in these regions.
Xtopav
is
In either case
is
ty)v
PaXaTtx-Jjv
part only.
But
still
again, he
may have
Xl
INTRODUCTION
Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, and thence on directlywestward to Ephesus. The last explanation makes the language cover
others.
a larger part of the country actually passed through than either of the It is, however, an objection to it that it supposes rakaziy.T]v
to be used in a different sense from
it
to
any that can reasonably be attached political sense, which is conthe Acts author and to the use of ^gu-^iav
^wpav in a
it.
against
and
elsewhere (14^3
cf.
15*1 16^)
also 14^2).
any mention
of the
founding of churches in
made on
were no churches.
This
is
the case.
evidence
in
any churches in northern Galatia is found two passages, both somewhat obscure, in a writer v/ho,
rate.
though doubtless in general trustworthy, is not always accuTo create on the basis of such evidence a group of
churches of Galatia,
may
it is
But
it is
to
conform
evidence of intending to furnish the background of the Epistle to the Galatians, never using the word " church " in connection with PaXaTtxTj.
On
if
the other hand, the analogy of similar cases suggests the possibility
name
Fcxkaxia
was extended to
INTRODUCTION
cover the Lycaonian, Pisidian, and Phrygian territory a
FaXaxtxTj
xli
new name,
See
above, p. xxviii.
It
may
be said against Zahn's view that it is incredible that visit scattered disciples in western ethnographic
be answered that a motive similar to that ascribed to Paul in Acts 20I8, together with a desire to foster the
which
may
Christian
tian country,
movement represented by scattered disciples in the Galamay have led him to avoid the cities of southern Galatia.
it is
Of course
were
but that, as the Acts writer says nothing about the churches of Syria and Cilicia, though Paul must have passed through these regions, he for some unknown reason ignores the cities The omisof southern Galatia though this journey included them.
sion of the second group
is
of the first.
We
and
is
i6^^-
1 823
all
the evidence
little
east of north
from Antioch, possibly passing around the Sultan Dagh and through Amorion and Pessinus, and that it was undertaken not for evangelisation but as a means of reaching
perhaps Bithynia.
which the apostle expected to work, at which they were Kara rrjv MvcxLav would be not Nakoleia or Kotiaion, but some point
some other
territory in
The point
further east,
perhaps Pessinus
itself.
Why
this
route was
At
and the consequent founding is no suggestion of this For in the Acts narrative, and no presumption in favour of it. the journey of Acts iS^^ there is no more probable route than that through the Cicilian Gates and via Tyana and Lake Tatta.
ing because of sickness (Gal. 4^^),
But
there
3.
Some minor
themselves
little
filled
Xlii
a.
INTRODUCTION
warmhearted, imThese characteristics have been pointed to as indicating their Gallic blood, and hence as tending to show that the churches were in northern Galatia. But warmheartedness and fickleness seem to have been equally characteristic of the Lycaonian people (\nth'Acts i4-' cj. Acts i4i' ")j and the evidence of the letter is too general in character to enable us to draw any conclusion whatever from this evidence.
epistle represents the people addressed as
fickle.
The
pulsive,
and
b. It has been said to be improbable that the scene between Peter and Paul depicted in Gal. 2"--' occurred before the second missionary journey, since in that case Paul must have proposed to Barnabas to accompany him on another journey after he had found him unstable on an important point. But if this incident of Gal. 2"-" is put after
it
narrates the
But
if it
must also itself be later than the second missionary journey. was written on the third journey, since Gal. 4" implies that
Paul had visited the Galatians but twice, these Galatians can not be
those of southern Galatia, because on his third missionary journe}^
he visited them
Hence,
it is
inferred,
we must
to be
place this incident after the second journey, the letter on the third
In reply
it is
that,
aside from
xpdxepov (see on 4'), this argument overlooks three possibilities that can not be ignored: (a) that the incident of Gal. 2"-" may have
from making
it;
(b) that
even
if
have been written before the third journey^ viz., at Antioch between the second and third journeys, and just after the Antioch incident; (c) that the third journey may not have included a visit to the churches of southern Galatia, and hence the letter, even if written on the latter part of that journey, may have been preceded by only two visits to the churches of southern Galatia. c. Inasmuch as Barnabas was with Paul on his first missionary journey when the churches of southern Galatia were founded, but did not accompany him on his second journey, and, hence, would not be known personally to the North-Galatian churches, if there were such, the fact that the letter mentions him without explanation or identificajourney, the letter
still
may
tion
fact
is
somewhat
But the
does not
The
letter
imply that the readers knew him in person, and they might know him by name if he had never been among them.
d.
2^
brought upon him in Jerusalem "that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" is understood by some to imply that at the time
INTRODUCTION
of the conference in Jerusalem he
xliii
may mean
in particular.
e. The people of Lystra took Paul and Barnabas for gods (Acts 14"). Paul says the Galatians received him as an angel of God (Gal. 4"). But the parallel is not close enough to prove anything more than that
the
people.
f.
The
allusion in Gal.
stUl
preached
cir-
him
g.
The "marks
Lord Jesus," Gal. 6", have been interpreted and the inference has been drawn was written on the second missionary journey, and that
of the
(4)
in northern Galatia.
cf.
But
i,
it is
equally
marks and to argue that the letter must belong to the third missionary journey and that the churches could not be in southern Galatia, since when Paul was at Ephesus he had on the South-Galatian theory been in southern Galatia
b above)
to refer these
i
three times.
h. It is said that Paul would not have gone into northern Galatia, where Greek was comparatively unknown. Jerome does, indeed, testify that the Gallic language was still spoken in this region three hundred years after Paul wrote. But the same passage characterises Greek as the common language of the Orient, and the use of Greek in inscriptions of Ancyra belonging to the time of Tiberius (Boeckh,
It is said that
argument can apply only to the second missionary journey; for if on that journey he had founded churches in Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium these churches would themselves have furnished a sufficient reason The question, therefore, for a subsequent journey into that region. reduces itself to the inquiry whether under the circumstances indicated in Acts i6 and Gal. 4" Paul would have gone northeast into northern Galatia. This question has already been discussed at length.
Xliv
INTRODUCTION
all
In view of
we conclude
ance of probability
in the form advocated by Sief. Schm. and Moff. is not impossible. If in place of the incomplete and obscure, possibly inaccurate, language of Acts i6^ and 1 823 -^g ha,d clear and definite evidence, this evidence might prove the existence of North-Galatian churches founded by
this letter.
If so, this
would, as
was written
as
it
stands
is
not sufficient to
whose
existence
of
we have no
On
is
the basis
that of
Zahn,
through the western edge of old Galatia, there finding or making a few disciples, but founding no churches;
letter to the
and that
his
III.
There
tians.
is
done is to fix certain limits of time was written. 1. It must obviously have been written after the events narrated in chaps, i and 2. Of these the conference at Jerusalem (2^-^) is expressly said to have taken place fourteen years after the conversion of Paul, or more probably fourteen years after his previous visit to Jerusalem, which itself took place
All that can be
within which
The
many and
two events.*
p. 168;
The Acts
McGiffert,
E. T. I
iQQjf.;
Com. on
Wcndt,
and other commentaries on Gal.; in Meyer's Kommentar, and other commentaries on Acts.
Gal.
pp.
123
jff.,
INTRODUCTION
narrative places
xlv
little
the conference
"no
mis-
sionary journey.
that of Gal.
2^,
We
which locates
it
years after the conversion of Paul and that of the Acts narrative,
which places
and second
presumably
missionary journeys.
3.
The
visit of
2"-^''
naturally assigned
4" has often been appealed had made two evangelistic journeys into Galatia. Taken alone the words do not seem with certainty to prove this (see note on rb TTporepoVj pp. 239^.). But when the evidence of 4^^' ^o {g. v.; cf. i^ also) that Paul had communicated with the Galatians between the original preaching of the gospel to them (4^^ and
The phrase rb
irporepov in Gal.
is is
explanation of
all
the data
made two
visits to
On
Antioch (Acts
but after the journey of Acts 16^-5. Time must also be allowed for the apostle to have gone some distance from Galatia, for the visit of the judaising missionaries,
for such success as they
had achieved
to Paul.
in their effort to
of salvation,
^
win the
way
news
See Gal.i^-
5^-^^^
and Purpose" below. As these conhave been fulfilled before the arrival of the apostle in Corinth as narrated in Acts 18^, we may regard it as improbable that the letter was written before that event. On the North-Galatian view and the supposition that Paul
had visited the churches twice before writing the letter, it must have been written after Acts iS^^. 5. The phrase ovtoos Ta;)^ecos in i^ shows that the letter was
'
xlvi
INTRODUCTION
but furnishes no ground of choice among dates which are on other grounds possible. See on i^
6. If
life
we
Romans.
The
latter,
Of somewhat similar character is the relation between Galatians and I and 2 Corinthians. The situation reflected in the latter,
showing the representatives of the judaistic tendency opposing
Paul's
work
was created in Galatia, the judaisers presumably moving westward in their attack upon Paul's work. But inasmuch as the letter was manifestly written while the situation that arose in Galatia was still acute, and not long after the visit of the judaisers, it is most probably to be assigned to a period before the coming of the judaisers to Corinth; in other words, not later than the early part of the apostle's two years and three months in Ephesus (Acts 19^-22). Yet this
scribed in Galatians
argument can not be strongly pressed. The missionaries to Galatia and Achaia were not at all certainly the same persons, and the delegation to Corinth may have gone there before the other group arrived in Galatia. 7. Some consideration is also due to the fact that the letters of the apostle taken together show that his controversy with his legalistic opponents made a deep impression on his thinking and, for some years at least, filled a large place in his thoughts. From i Corinthians to Colossians every letter shows at least some marks of this controversy, while of several of them it is the central theme. But in i and 2 Thessalonians we This fact creates a find no reference whatever to this matter. certain probability that Galatians was not written till after But the force of this argument is I and 2 Thessalonians.
largely destroyed
by the
nians must have been written in any case after the conference
INTRODUCTION
xlvii
at Jerusalem, and, therefore, after the judaistic controversy had come to fill a large place in the apostle's thought. But if, as is on the whole probable, Galatians was written after the arrival at Corinth on his second missionary journey, and before Romans on his third missionary journey, there are several places and times at which it may have been written, of which four are perhaps most worthy of consideration. If it was written to the churches of southern Galatia it may date from (i) Corinth in the period of Acts i8^-^^, and either before
i
(^2)
Thessalonians,
(2)
Antioch in the
period of Acts
iS^^.
23a^
ered
by Acts
20^-3.
Mynster {Einleitung in den Brief an die Galater, in Kleinere Schriften^ Zahn (Einleitung in d. N. TJ, pp. 139-142, E. T. pp. 193 /., esp. 196-199), Bacon (Introduction to the N. T., p. 58), and Kendall (Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. IX; Exp. Grk. Test., vol. Ill, p. 146) assign it to Corinth before the writing of i Thessalonians, thus making it the first of all the apostle's letters. Renan (St. Paul, p. 313) and Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 189 _^.; Commentary, pp. 242 ff.) date it from Antioch in the period of Acts 18"^, while Askwith (Epistle to the Galatians, chaps. VII, VIII) dates it from Macedonia after
1825),
2 Corinthians.
iS^^
as against Cor-
it is
to be said that
and
their success
or Achaia.
It has also
pp. 189
full
ff.)
information of the state of affairs such as would not easily have been obtained by a letter, and impHes, therefore, that he had received knowledge by a personal messenger. As such messenger no one would be more probable than Timothy, himself
a Galatian.
i
some time, as
the latter
But Timothy was with Paul at Corinth for and 2 Thessalonians show. Only then, towards part of the Corinthian residence, could he have left
Xlviii
INTRODUCTION
Paul for Galatia, and in that case could have joined Paul at no more probable place than Antioch. Indeed, it is a verynatural hypothesis that at or about the time when Paul left
Corinth to go to Syria by water, he sent Timothy to go as far
as Ephesus
for the double purpose of visiting his
by water and thence through Asia Minor overland home once more and of
In that case,
whether originally expecting to go through to Antioch or to await Paul in Galatia, it would be natural for Timothy, when
he learned the state of
affairs in Galatia, to
hasten forward to
of the incident at
if
The prominence
would
the apostle
To
from Syrian Antioch between his second and must have been on the point of going to Galatia himself, it is sufficient to answer that we have no means of knowing how long he was still to tarry at Antioch when he wrote, and that his conduct in relation to the church at Corinth (see esp. 2 Cor. i^^ 2^) shows that he had
to the Galatians third missionary journeys, since he
rather than
by
a personal
fessed,
But none
It
must be con-
what seems
cf.
to be the
p. xl.
was
and hopelessly so, in which case the would probably not have been preserved), he would certainly wish to attempt to accomplish by a visit what he had
INTRODUCTION
failed to achieve
xllX
by
his letter.
If,
all
and
assumed
to
be successful, but in
itself
furnishes no strong
The
less
is,
and as
is
even
than
against
(4^3)
Corinth
on
the
second.
Nor can
TO TTporepov
that at that time Paul would have been in Galatia three times,
for, as
shown above,
18^^
it is
journey of Acts
is
any weight in Ram.'s argument respecting the probability of Timothy bringing the apostle personal information, this applies almost equally well to Ephesus as the place of writing. For if
Paul did not
visit the
18^3
very well have sent Timothy by that and have received Timothy's report at Ephesus. The arguments by which Askwith supports his contention in favour of Macedonia on the third missionary journey are
ney
of
Acts
he
may
route,
not
all
is
and
its
Cor.
9^.
Yet neither
is
argument
Apparently, therefore,
for deciding
destined
was written
in the latter
ney, in
Macedonia or Achaia.
it
If there is
abihty
On
them a
letter, as
INTRODUCTION
ten after Acts i8".
On the other hand, his journeys after leaving Corinth at the end of his third missionary journey (Acts so^) are such
make
the writing of the letter after this latter time improbable, as
also the relation of Galatians to
as to
is
Romans. As between Ephesus and Macedonia, or between either of these and Achaia, there is little ground for choice. The argument of Ltft. that it must be placed after the Corinthian letters because of its close affinity to Romans is of little
Romans was probably a and may have been composed some months before the Roman copy was sent from Corinth.
weight, especially in view of the fact that
circular letter
Continental scholars
who hold
So Mey. Ws.
Godet, Stein.
Simi-
Holtzmann places it on the journey to Ephesus, or soon after the arrival there, and Jiilicher during the Ephesus ministry, but while on a missionary journey out from that city. Conybeare and Howson, and after them Ltft., argue for Corinth on the same journey; so also Salmon. On the whole, there is no more probable date for the letter than Ephesus on the third missionary journey, whether it was written
to northern or southern Galatia.
Lake. Earlier Epistles of Si. Paid, pp. 279 ^/T., identifying the visit to Jerusalem of Gal. 2110 with that of Acts, chaps. 11 and 12, and
Emmet
{Galatians,
pp.
XIV ^.),
21-1"
ii^",
with
But against
of
this
the
meaning
many points
and Acts,
chap. 15, constitute on the whole decisive evidence for the reference
Gal.
its
but
it is
this occasion,
than that,
and the agreement stated in Gal. 2'' '" was reached at that time, the whole question was reopened, and an event so like the former one occurred some two years later. Turner, art. "Chronology" in HDB, vol. I, p. 424, col. a {cf. also Zahn, Kom. pp. iio^.), holds that the visit of Peter to Antioch (Gal.
occasion of the visit of Acts
211-14) preceded the events of Gal. of 2J-"' with that of Acts, chap. 15,
2^-'^.
Turner
dxb
'laxtopou
of
Gal.
2^^
with
the
rcveq
xaxeXOovxei;
d%h
-zriq
'louBotfat;
INTRODUCTION
of Acts
151.
K
ii'",
Ram.
Traveller, pp.
Gal.
2^-^
in
which
stands in Galatians.
As
indi-
cated above he dates the letter in the period of Acts 18". The result in both cases is, without affecting the date of the letter, to place the Antioch incident at a longer interval before the writing of
it
common
2^
identifying Gal.
Zahn, agreeing with Ram. in 2 undisturbed. with Acts n'" and with Turner in placing Gal. 2"-" before 21-", puts the Antioch incident still further back, even before Paul's first missionary Journey, but still puts the writing of the letter
order of Gal. chap.
2^
as
Ram.
There is little or nothing to be said against the date to which these writers assign the letter, but quite as little to be said in favour of the position to which they assign the Antioch incident. The transposition of the parts of Gal. chap. 2, to which Turner and
Acts 18".
Zahn
resort, is
indeed not explicitly excluded by an exetra at the is there anything to support it in the
it
As
is
the exegesis of the passage, the question which arose at Antioch is distinctly different from that which was discussed at Jerusalem, but
one to which the ignoring of ultimate issues which characterised the Jerusalem conference, and the compromise in which it issued, was
almost certain to give rise. The position, moreover, which Paul was driven to take at Antioch was definitely in advance of that which he took at Jerusalem, involving a virtual repudiation not of one statute
of the law, but of
for the Jews.
all,
and
this
The
events
is,
therefore,
may,
happened
new
issue
at Antioch
already settled in decisions recorded in Acts, chap. 15. But in view of all the evidence, the solution of this difficulty lies neither in denying the general identity of the event of Gal. 21-1 with that of
is
Acts, chap. IS, nor in putting Acts, chap. 15 after Gal. 2-", but in
is
inaccurate in
its
statement of the
outcome
of
the conference,
either
The view
of
the two visits to Galatia implied in zh xpoxspov of Gal. 4" are the outward and return parts of the journey through southern Galatia on the
Hi
first
INTRODUCTION
missionary journey, on which
is
letter
on
p.
was written before the second missionary journey, is discussed McGiffert's argument that if Paul had visited the Galatian 241,
churches since the conference of Acts, chap. 15, he would have had no occasion to give them the full account of it in Gal. 2^-^, as of something of which they had not heard before, ignores the hint of the letter
(i''4>8)
the possibility, not to say probability, that the acute situation which existed when he wrote the letter called for a fresh statement of the
The
life, to calendar dates involves the whole problem of the chronology of the apostle's life. Without entering at length into this question, which lies
it
may
suffice to
point
out that
if,
as seems to be proved
by an
inscription found at
Delphi (see Report of the Palestine Exploration Fund, April, 1908; Deissmann, St. Paul, Appendix II; American Journal of
Theology,
XXI
299), Gallio
became proconsul
it
of
Achaia in the
summer
of 51 a. d.,
we
If it
tween his
first
into 51 or 52;
if if
at
in
all
Macedonia or at Corinth, on the third missionary journey, at some time in 54 or 55. If we identify the conference of
Gal.
held,
2^-10
15,
assume, as
d.,
is
generally
that
Herod Agrippa
died in 44 a.
and, on the
of this event in Acts, assign the visit of Acts ii^o 1225 to a date not later than about
will follow that the first visit to Galatia
(Acts,
21-10)
not far
the resultant
a. d.
INTRODUCTION
Cor. 11"*
liii
The argument for the later date (34 or 35) based on i falls to the ground with the recognition of the fact that the presence of the
ethnarch of Aretas in Damascus does not imply that Damascus was in
the dominion of Aretas.
See on i".
IV.
It
is
in dispute
if
and
only
at
all,
by a balance
of probabilities resting
The previous
it
and
his
was
itself.
The Galatians
to
whom
Christians, converted
the letter was written were Gentile from heathenism (4^), evidently under
(i^^
4^^;
cf. $^^-).
Paul's
first
;
preach-
them was occasioned by illness on his part (4^^) intending to go in some other direction, he was led by illness to go to Galatia, or being on his way through Galatia and not intending to tarry there, he was led to do so by illness. He proclaimed to them Jesus Christ and him crucified, preaching that
men
works of law
48-11
^3. 4)_
(3^- 2).
and attain the approval of God apart from He imposed on his converts no Jewish
(32^
Galatians received
him and
his gospel
with
enthusiasm
gift of
{4}^-^^).
They were
(3^-^).
wrought among them giving That Paul visited them a second time is made practically certain by the evidence of 194"- 20 Possibly before the second visit there had been false (g. v.). teachers among them (i^), but if so the defection had not been serious (i^ 5^). More recently, however, a serious attempt had
the
Spirit, miracles
Holy
liv
INTRODUCTION
been made to draw them away from the gospel as Paul had ^his new doctrine opposed to preached it to them (i^ 5^2) Its advocates Paul's was of a judaistic and legalistic type.
_
it
by appealing
Testament.
Abraham and his seed recorded in the Old Though the letter makes no definite quotation
it is
easily evident
from
who
^'
were,
by blood
upon by which a Gentile was adopted into the family of Abraham. Though they had cautiously abstained from endeavouring to impose upon the
42^-^^
"
They had
Galatians the whole Jewish law, or from pointing out that this
was
logically involved in
(5^),
they had
(4^).
To
sufficient to arouse
more conducive
which
to embitteris
The
confirmed
by I and 2 Corinthians, that the apostolic office or function was clearly recognised as one of great importance in the Christian community, and that the question who could legitimately claim it was one on which there was sharp difference of opinion. An apostle was much more than a local elder or itinerant missionary. He was a divinely commissioned founder of Christian
churches, indeed, more, of the Christian church oecumenical.
)
With
their effort to
was Hmited
to those
Jesus or by
those
whom
he appointed.
INTRODUCTION
Twelve, a
Iv
man who knew nothing of Christianity except what he had learned from the Twelve, and preached this in a perverted form. This appears from the nature of Paul's defence
an apostle in the first two chapand indicates that with their theory of a limited apostolate the judaisers had associated the claim that the apostoKc commission must proceed from the circle of the original Twelve. See detached note on 'AttoVtoXos, pp. 363^. This double attack of the judaisers upon the apostle and his doctrine and the attempt to convert the Galatians to their view was upon the point of succeeding when Paul learned of
ters of the letter,
giving
up the
his
(i'');
he feared that
yet in a hopeful
moment he
was confident
in the
away
(51).
Such is the situation that gave rise to the letter. In a sense Paul had a double purpose, partly to defend himself, partly to defend his gospel, but only in a sense. The defence of himself
Considerable
was
and
of
no use
to affirm,
doubted
his claim to
Towards the end he carefully guards from certain specious but false and mischievous inferences from it (s^^-), and touches upon a few other minor
matters.
But the
is
to arrest the
perverted gospel
and
to
in
Jesus Christ apart from works of law, the gospel which Paul
himself
most important information which we can not suppose to have been any part of the apostle's plan to transmit to us, but which is not on that account the less
Ivi
INTRODUCTION
valuable.
No
full
and objective a
i
two chapters
i
of this letter.
Informing as are
and
Corinthians,
are even
more
Not
N^l
less
valuable
the contribution of the letter to the hisIt carries us into the very heart of
t^the
i
of
which
The story is told, indeed, in part in Acts, but as it was conceived i years after the event; in the letter we have not so much an account of the controversy as a voice out of the conflict itself.
1
;
'The information
is
and vividness
is
of nature.
Not
least
controversy.
most
antagonism
reli-
necessary to
and while Peter lacked the steadiness of vision make him stand firmly for the more liberal view,
of
to
They had,
with the Jerusalem apostles to lead the latter to urge Paul to pursue a compromising course; but when Paul refused, the
pillar-apostles virtually took his side
and gave
to
him hands
Gentiles.
.1
were really three two leaves its significance but little diminished and its bitterness unchanged. The sharpness of the apostle's language both in Galatlans and 2 Corinthians was doubtless called forth by at least an equal
of the fact that there
bitterness
on the side
of his opponents.
The
questions at issue
INTRODUCTION
Ivii
were fundamental (see below, V) and the discussion of them was no calm academic debate, but a veritable contest for large stakes between men of intense conviction and deep feeling.
Nor was
. ';
it
one arisen in that age which Paul contended, or had the controversy issued in a victory for the judaistic party, the whole history of Christianity must have been different from what it
only, nor for that age alone.
to espouse the view for
Had no
Christianity would have been only a sect of Judaand as such would probably have been of relatively little force in the history of the world, or would even have been lost altogether, becoming reabsorbed into the community from
has been.
ism,
U
j
which it came. The letter to the Galatians is a first-hand i document from the heart of one of the most significant controversies in the history of religion.
V.
THE QUESTIONS AT
ISSUE.
show that the controversy in which it played a part had to do with certain questions which were of fundamental importance for early Christianity. These questions did not first come to the surface in Galatia, but neither did they become
prominent at the beginning of Paul's career, nor were they all stated and discussed with equal expHcitness. The one which
and was probably also was whether Gentiles who, attracted by the message of the gospel, were disposed to accept it must be ^'Hcircumcised in order to be recognised as members of the Christian community and to participate in the salvation which the
came most
first
the
to be debated
who
received
it.
To
this question
shows clearly that Paul had, before beginning his evangeUstic work in Galatia, returned a definitely negative
answer.
on the whole sufficient to show that this position of the apostle was not at first strongly opposed by the Jerusalem church (see i^^ and notes thereon).
explicit in its individual items, is
The statement
of Gal.
i^^-
^'^
that
when
Ivi'i
INTRODUCTION
God
in
makes
it
no strong sentiment in the Jerusalem church against recognising Gentiles who accepted the gospel message as members of the new fellowship and community. That presently,
first
was at
On
added
to the Christian
community
tendencies
strongly
conservative
Christianity ought to be built strictly on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, and that the Christian sect ought to differ from other Jewish sects, in particular from the Pharisaic sect, only by the addition of the doctrine of the Messiahship of Jesus, and in no case by any subtraction from the doctrines or requirements of the Old Testament religion as currently interpreted.
On
became more manifest and better known to and serious nature of his departure from the views and practices now becoming current in the mother church doubtless became more evident. As a result of these two influences the question of the obligation of the Gentile Christians to be circumcised came to an issue in the incident narrated by Paul in Gal. 2^-^. The debate which took place on that occasion was apparently limited to this one quesactivity of Paul
The Jerusalem
apostles at
first
way
of
and not
to insist
upon circumcision.
commentary on this passage. But the decision of this question speedily opened another
one.
and
to circumcise
the Gentile members, but for Jews to eat with the Gentiles,
INTRODUCTION
doubtless also for Gentiles to eat with the Jews.
that our only explicit record
after Peter
is
lix
It is true
came
to Antioch.
first
contrary to
all
probabihty.
The
table-fellowship at Antioch
was
clearly the
On
That the Gentiles with whom Jewish Christians were eating were not conforming to the laws of the Old Testament concerning food,
table-fellowship of the
by the Jews,
also,
It is not, in-
down a
{cf.
in general
Acts
But that
which the
more strenuous rule, in so far as it was observed or enforced, was an expansion by tradition, was distinctly in mind as the crux of the controversy is shown by several considerations. In
the
first
2^^
but of food.
pretation of Peter's withdrawal from fellowship with the Gentiles as an attempt to compel the Gentiles to conform to Jewish custom (Gal. 2^^) imphes that the fellowship could be resumed on condition that the Gentiles observed the Jewish law; which obviously would not be the case if those who came from James
Gentiles in
in
it
was a statute of the law, not a tradition, the observance of which was at issue. Even the narrative in Acts, chap. 15, though manifestly not a wholly correct report of what
evident that
it
IX
INTRODUCTION
took place in Jerusalem and having no direct reference to the Antioch incident, nevertheless shows how early the food law
But
to that
was not binding on the Gentiles was not binding on them. These two new questions came to issue in the discussion between Peter and Paul at Antioch as narrated in 2"^-. And on this occasion Paul squarely took the position that the law of foods was not only not binding on Jewish Christians, but that they must not obey it under circumstances like those at Antioch, which made their observance of it a compulsion of the Gentiles to do the same.
By
this contention
Paul in
effect
who
That
he did
but with recognition of the fact that this position on circumcision and foods carried with it the general principle, is indicated by his employment, both in his
this
not only in
narrative of
what he
said to Peter
and
This
also confirmed
by the
(i
Cor.
6^2.
(^j^
jo23)
Though
was quoted in justification of gross immorality, he would not withdraw it, but reaffirmed it and rested his case against sexual crime solely on the Christian ground that all things are not expedient, and that by fornication the members of Christ become members of
i.
a harlot,
e.,
To Paul
it
was not
circumcision and foods, and festival days only that could not
INTRODUCTION
ki
upon
in the
name
of law.
Yet
While quoting from the Old Testament the dicta of that legalism which he emphatically rejects (3^), he more frequently
quotes from it sentiments which he heartily approves. But, more important, he affirms that the whole law is fulfilled in one word to which he gives his unqualified assent (5^^), a
sentence which in view of his clear rejection of certain clear
that he saw in the law, him of no value, certain fundamental principles which he had come to regard as conThus stituting the real essence and substance of the law.
mean
many
all
a discriminative
much
in
that
is
true
command
authoritative.
This discriminative
atti-
from many
of its precepts,
upon connecting
us no definite
ment,
in this
is
most
significant.
effect,
Though he has
left
statement to this
way
in his
own mind, he
is
the heir of
the ages,
it is
also
and the arbiter of its own rehgion. His conduct implied that not what was held in the past, though it stood in sacred scriptures with an affirmation of its perpetual authority, was determinative for the conviction and conduct of living men, but that the criterion for belief and action was
found in their own interpretation of human experience, own experience and that of past generations as far as known to them. Religion is not then, for him, static, but
to be
their
fluid, in
Ixii
INTRODUCTION
was
i. e.,
[the issue
religion or
differing
this
was to continue, as it was at first, a sect of Judaism, mainly by one doctrine from current Pharisaism. On question Paul took clear issue wdth the conservative party
the believers in the Messiahship of Jesus.
among
The
inspira-
was a vision of a church universal worshipping the one God and Father, and accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour a church into which men should come from every nation and religion, not through the vestibule of Judaism and the acceptance of the law of Moses and the rites of the Old Testament, but straight from where they were and through the single and open door of faith in Jesus Christ. His opponents also believed in one God and in Jesus as his Messiah, but they
tion of his mission
men
Judaism, or
way
When
Paul in his intensity of feeling denounces brethren, took up arms against his doctrine of the
whom
freedom of the Gentiles and his practical apphcation of it to circumcision and foods, they found it necessary to deny his
of Christianity, and to claim was vested in those who had received it from Jesus while he was alive on earth. This affirmation Paul denied, claiming that he had an independent right to preach the gospel by virtue of the revelation of Jesus to him as the Son of God (i^*^- "^). Yet in claiming for himself
right to
assume to be an expositor
this right to preach the gospel without hindrance or permission from the Twelve he conceded to them equally with himself the title of apostle (i^^), and the same right to preach within their
(2^).
It
is
true,
INTRODUCTION
indeed, that he
Ixiii
endeavoured
his
(2
to
was severe in his denunciation of those who undo his own work (i), and was outspoken in
of those
this is
condemnation
Cor.
iii3).
But
whom he regarded as false apostles but the extreme affirmation of his own
and an evidence that
zeal to
make converts was not for him a necessary proof of a divine commission or a right spirit. It in no way contravenes what we are now affirming that what he claimed for himself, viz., a
divine commission and a corresponding responsibility, he freely admitted might be possessed by other men who did not wholly agree with him. Sitting in council with them he neither con-
own
demanded that they should conform theirs to his. The gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircumcision had certain elements in common, but they were by no means identical. Yet he claimed for himself the right and duty to preach his gospel, and admitted the right and duty of
the other apostles to preach theirs.
Thus
men
of his time,
to teach to
reduced to
was any central doctrinal authority community as a whole. Claiming the right the Gentiles a religion stripped of all legalism and a few religious and ethical principles, he conceded
attempt to win the Jews to
still
them
legalism.
That both
parties
ahke had
preach
recog-
to his
Such recognition Paul freely granted Thus without fellow-apostles and claimed for himself.
expounding in detail a doctrine of the seat of authority in religion, he in reality raised the whole question, and by implication took a very positive position, not against conference
and
these he
council,
on
of
community or
and in favour of the right of the individual to deliver the message he believes God has given him, and if he gives credible
Ixiv
INTRODUCTION
work without interference. But in connection with this principle of liberty in religion there arose in the mind of the apostle, as doubtless also in the minds both of his converts and his critics, further questions.
What
is
How
is
moral character
achieved?
to think of religion as
and of acceptance with God as conditioned upon such obedience and membership in the community whose uniting tie and basis of unity was a relation to the covenant recorded in the books, it was a serious question what became of religion and morality if there was no longer any authoritative book or any centralised ecclesiastical authority. Precisely this
question Paul never states in these words, but with the question itself he deals explicitly
in effect, is
and
directly.
ReHgion, he says
a spiritual relation to
God
an
man, summed up
is
in the
word "love"
(Gal. 5).
rules,
Morality, he affirms,
but by living in fellowship with the Spirit of God and in consequent love towards men, issuing in conduct that makes
(s^^-^^).
than
ecclesiastical,
religion.
This
is
Thus he makes religion personal rather and morality a social relation grounded in not a new doctrine. It had been announced
It
is
by the prophets
us Jesus taught.
who
But not even the make it the dominant thought company of his followers, and it
was a novelty, indeed, in the Graeco-Roman world. It has never been accepted wholeheartedly by any considerable portion of the Christian church.
It is not to-day the real creed of any great part of Christendom.
In
some
of the
INTRODUCTION
IxV
The positions which he took were in the main not those that were generally accepted in his day or have been accepted since. He was not the first to announce them, but as held by him
ing.
\ they
^
were mainly the product of his own experience and thinkThe writing of the Epistle to the Galatians was an
It
is
matter
its vital
VI.
The
not easily
arose,
in its
and
if
so whether he wrote
It can not
which is accepted as certainly written by Paul. For no other letter which has any better claim to be regarded But neither can it be best as his work than Galatians itself. discussed without reference to the other letters. As has been
letter
there
is
shown
the letter
itself
discloses,
largely incidentally
effort or intention,
make it very improbable that it is a work framed to create the impression that a situation which existed only in the writer's mind was an actual one.
is itself
This fact
is
Yet the
professes
have been, by Paul, an early preacher of the Christian gospel and a founder of churches among the Gentiles, can best be dealt
with in connection with the same question respecting some, at
least, of
For
"the real
question
more
most
specifically
in
relation
Ixvi
INTRODUCTION
disclose, or that the
whole group
is
work
of art
and
manusome
are of the former kind, there are others whose qualities bring
them under
the genuine,
suspicion.
if
and
fix
the standard
by
and
which to
ments
any books that were what they professed to be. On the its own claims to be from Paul and the claim of the church that it belonged to the first century have been denied only in connection with a general denial that we have any first-century Christian literature, or that there was any
tion
other hand,
The reason
for this
is
not far to
The
situation out of
it
and which
which Galatians purports to spring professes to reflect is a very definite and concrete
somewhat
less close
resemblance in
in the
other
let-
name, and
Book
of Acts.
No
one
book can without arbitrariness be assumed to be the standard by which to test all the rest. No single book can arbitrarily be excluded from consideration or postponed for secondary consideration. But if in the examination of all the books purporting to come from the first age of the church, it proves to be a difficult task to restore from them all a self-consistent account of the whole situation, then it is not an irrational but a reasonable course to inquire whether there is any group which unitedly reflects a situation which is self-consistent, psychologically possible, and in general not lacking in verisimilitude; and then in turn to make this group and the situation it discloses the point
of departure for determining the relation of the rest to this
situation.
F. C.
Baur and the Tubingen School may have somewhat arbitrary in limiting their
INTRODUCTION
normative group to Galatians,
i
kvii
Corinthians, and Ro-
and
mans.
But
their error
was not
begun with
lonians,
Thessagrounds.
Philippians,
and Philemon on
shall
insufficient
if
with Baur
we begin with
and that they all present a clearly defined pichowever they differ among themselves in important features, is yet consistent in the total result, and
ture of him, which, singularly life-like.
and
conception of Jesus and his attitude towards him, the outstanding elements of his religion, the characteristics of his
mind and
by
the
same man
in the
same general
period of his
life
circumstances.
It is not necessary for the purpose of this argument to inquire whether every part of the Epistle to the Romans, as we possess it, was
written
epistles
in our
lines
so-called 2 Corinthians, or
of his own.
The
both arrangement
and some additions does not materially affect the significance of the substantial and striking consistency and complementariness of the testimony of the several letters to the character and career of their author.
Nor, as indicated above,
question whether
i
is it
and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians have equal claim to genuineness with the four which Baur and his school accepted. The course of action which the internal evidence of the letters and the history of criticism combine to make most practicable is that which is indicated above.
is
It
by Paul and as
Ixviii
INTRODUCTION
his
life,
knowledge concerning
victions.
his controversies,
and
his con-
we
Consistently with the general practice of the time, and what find to be the case in respect to other New Testament books,
there is a considerable period after the writing of the letter in which we find traces, indeed, of its influence on other Christian
writers but
no
explicit
mention
of
it
by the name
either of the
Peter, which
by
St. Peter
and
i
St.
Von Soden (cited by Bigg, Jude, in Int. Crit. Com. p. 20) finds such relationship
and Gal. 3" 4^; between i Pet. 2i and Gal. 5'; and Gal. 42*. 0. D. Foster, The Literary Relations of the First Epistle of Peter, New Haven, 19 13, finds a still longer list of coincidences, which he ascribes to dependence of i Peter on
Pet. i^^i
between
and between
Pet. 3
Galatians.
I
If,
Peter upon
it
Lxxiv/.)
as is probable, we should recognise a dependence of Romans (Sanday and Headlam, Com. on Romans, pp. is not improbable that the writer knew Galatians also.
cited are not in themselves altogether conclusive
Barn.
Probable reminiscences of the language of Galatians are found in 19': xotvwvrjastq ev Tuaatv tw xXigatoy aou (Gal. 6); Clem.
49: 8ca
-rjEAwv
Rom.
uxe?
t?]v
(^YdxYjv, t]v
eaxsv xpbq
-fjtJLtov,
Tfj^juzq,
'ItqjoGc;
Xptatbc; h x6ptoc;
:f)[jL(i)v
Iv
Os^vig^aTt
t-J)v
adpxa uxep
(Gal. lO8q
xal
xi^q
aapxbq
xal
x-f)v
^^uj^wv
f)[X(ov
.
IlauXou
<x'Jilq
eypatl^sv
lxtaxoXd<;,
6[JLtv
dq
ofxoSotxstjOat
dq i^v
SoGsTaav
xfaxcv,
laxl
\^-TiTr\g
xdvxwv
u^uov (Gal. 42); P/k7. 51, dlb-zzq oijv oxt Gsb^ ou [iuxxT)p(?;exat (Gal. 6^;
note the coincidence of the anarthrous 626^ in both cases, and cf. com. I. .); Phil. 12': qui credituri sunt in Dominum nostrum et Deum
Jesum Christum
(Gal.
I');
et
eum a
Iv
mortuis
(sc.
Just.
Mart.
Dial
951:
Iv
extxaxdpaxoq
ydp
eYpTjxat
Miou&qq)
ToCi
%aq
oq
oux Ifx^^vet
aijxd
xolq
yeypa[X[iivoiq
xy
^t^Xiq)
(Gal. 3J0;
Lxx
xotijja'.
auxouq).
233
/;
on early Christian literature, cf. Charteris, Canonicity, pp. Gregory, Canon and Text, pp. 201 /.; Moff. Introd. p. 107.
As
which Galatians
is
included.
INTRODUCTION
From
Tertullian, Adv. Marc. V,
Ixix
modifying their
text.
and from Epiph. Haer. XLII, we somewhat These ten were Galatians, i and 2 Corinthians,
and 2 Thessalonians, Laodiceans (Ephesians?), Colossians, Both writers name them in the same Philippians, and Philemon. order except that Epiphanius puts Philemon before Philippians. The agreement of a free-lance such as Marcion with the orthodox party is more significant of the state of early Christian opinion than would be
Romans,
its
the Galatians
apparently the
extant mention of
{op.
cit.,
it
by name.
about
p. 129) dates
170 A. D. and most others before 200 A. d. at latest (for different opinions see Jiilicher, Einl.^, p. 146) includes Galatians among the epistles of
Paul.
From about
tion of
it
175 a. d. quotations from the epistle with citaof its language are
found.
Irenaeus quotes Gal.
4^' ^ expressly ascribing it to Paul (Haer. 3. 60, S speaking of these passages as in the Epistle to the GalaSee Charteris, op. cit., p. 235. {Haer. 3. f, 16'; 5. 21^.
3i,
and 3"
tians.
4*-
ouq x(iXtv
men who
widely
among
may
all
crucified to
x6a[JL(p
me and
I to the
world":
saTaOpwxac,
xiy^
T^
(Gal. 6").
From
and no question
it.
was raised
Even
To Bruno Bauer
first
In opposition
in his
criticism especially against the fourth gospel, denied also the genuineness of
sians,
Romans, Epheand Colossians, and expressed doubts about Philippians, Titus, and Philemon, but no question about Galatians. Cf. Sief. Kom. p. 26; Knowling, Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, p. 38. Steck, Galaterbrief p. 4, seems to be in error in saying that Evanson embraced in his denial all the books of the New Testament with the possible exception of Luke. I have not myself seen Evanson.
raised
,
"
IXX
INTRODUCTION
to the well-known view of F. C. Baur and the Tubingen school that the chief factor in the production of the genuine literary remains of the apostolic age was the controversy between the judaistic
in the
and
party tendency represented by Paul, Corinthians, and Romans were the prodliberal
ucts on the Pauline side of this conflict, B. Bauer in his Kritik der paulinischen Briefe, Berlin, 185(^52, assigned practically all the books of the New Testament, including all the so-called letters of Paul,
to
In 1882 Professor A. D.
Loman
of
publication
title
"Qua;s-
whom we
all
we have no letters from Paul, and that by Baur are in reality attempts to present an
idealised Paul.
A. Pierson, who in 1878 had incidentally expressed doubts of the genuineness of the Epistle to the Galatians, in 1886 joined with S. A.
Naber
plained
in a
volume
the
entitled,
Verisimilia:
et
ah origine repetierimt.
They
ex-
working-over of
thought.
editorial
Testament books as the result of a Christian books produced originally by a liberal school of Jewish
New
epistles in particular are the product of the of a certain Paulus Episcopus of the second century. Rudolf Steck, in Der Galaterhrief nach seiner Echthcit untersucM,
The Pauline
work
Berlin, 1888, maintains the historicity of the apostle Paul, but holds
The
Romans,
Corinthians,
Corinthians, Galatians,
by the Pauhne
School, the
last
at first vigorously opposed the views of Loman, but advocated similar opinions. In his article "Paul," in Encyc. Bib. vol. Ill, col. 3603 /., he contends that "we possess no
later himself
epistles of
Van Manen
Paul"
(col. [of
3631),
lead us so far as
concerned to think of a Catholic adaptation of a letter previously read in the circle of the Marcionites, although we are no longer in a position to restore the older form"
(col.
Galatians]
3627).
It is
named
INTRODUCTION
kxi
in
above and a very few others* they have won no adherents either England or America or on the Continent. The verdict of
by H. J. Holtzmann is accepted by "For ten years a determined effort was made by Holland and Switzerland to ascribe all of the epistles
Germany
as expressed
scholars generally.
of
Paul as not genuine to the second century. This attempt German theology" {New World,
is
interested
may
and
ZkWkL,
Gloel,
Die
jiingste Kritik
im Feuer
Epistles
to the
Lon-
don, 1892, chap. III; and Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, New York, 1905, Preface and Lectures I and III; Schmiedel, article, "Galatians,"
in Encyc. Bib. vol. II, cols. 1617-1623;
vol. I, pp. 6-42;
VII;
ing,
cf.
Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 191 1, chap. also literature referred to by Moff. Introd., p. 107, Knowlop.
cit.
and Schmiedel,
Modern
criticism as represented
by
was written, as
apostle of the
it
first
The
disclosure of a
commanding
which
is
professing to
period, supple-
mented by the external evidence, rather meagre though it is, furnish no ground or occasion, indeed, for any other opinion.
* J. Friedrich,
Die Unechthett des Galaterbriefs 1891; Kalthoff, Die Entstehung des ChristenPagan Christs. Cf. Knowling and
,
Clemen, op.
cit.
Ixxii
INTRODUCTION
VII.
I.
Introduction,
1.
authority
i^-^.
2.
abandonment
which
II.
is
of his teaching
by the Galatians,
i*-^.
in
The
independence of
all
human
i^^2^^
relation to Christ:
1.
God i"
".
human
life
i"-22i.
life
b.
hii.
c.
visit to
Jerusalem three
1I8-20.
e.
visit to
/.
g.
an exposition
of
the gospel
which he
preached 2"-".
INTRODUCTION
III.
Ixxiii
The
and
Gentiles,
become
acceptable to
of law, defended
Abraham"
Chaps.
are such
3, 4.
law.
1.
2.
faith of
of
Abraham"
3.
3^-9.
fixed
by law
are
by the
310-14.
Argument from the irrevocableness of a covenant and the priority of the covenant made with
Abraham
ant
5.
is still
Answer to the objection that the preceding argument leaves the law without a reason for being
319-22.
6.
then
are
7.
we were
now we
t,^-^.
all
illus-
8.
bondage
and
exhortation to
48-11.
them not
9.
Ixxiv
INTRODUCTION
former enthusiastic reception of the apostle and
affection for
10.
him
4^^-^'^.
wrong branch
of the family
5^-6^"
4^^-^^.
rV.
dom
b.
in Christ
51-12.
an occasion
513-26.
the flesh
c.
who
fall,
and
to bear
6^-^
Exhortations having a
less
V.
6^^-'^^
3.
VIII.
THE TEXT.
Accepting in general the principles of Westcott and Hort, commentary has diligently examined the
ev^ence
principles.
The
the most part of the Westcott and Hort text; yet in a few cases
the evidence has seemed to require the adoption of a different
by those eminent scholars. The evidence has been gained almost wholly from Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Greece, ed. oct. crit. maj. Leipzig, Use has also been made of Souter, Novum Testamentum 1872.
reading from that preferred
Greece,
INTRODUCTION
of
it
Ixxv
The
Hand-
notation
schriften des
Neuen Testaments,
Leipzig, 1908,
in part in
The
epistle is
found in whole or
it is
twenty-one uncial
The
five
8.
Codex Sinaiticus.
brary,
Fourth century.
In Imperial Li1862;
Petrograd.
Edited by Tischendorf,
A.
Codex Alexandrinus. Fifth century. In British Museum, London. Edited by Woide, 1786; N. T. porgraphic facsimile, by E.
by Cowper, i860; Hansell, 1864; in photoMaunde Thompson, 1879; and again in photographic simile by F. G. Kenyon
tion
in 1909.
B.
Codex Vatlcanus. Fourth century. In Vatican Library, Rome. Photographic facsimile by Cozza-Luzi, 1889
C.
Fifth century.
In National
it is
As
its
name
implies,
a palimpbeing
Testa-
Ephrem
New
1843.
ment portion
tains Gal.
1 21,
edited
by Tischendorf,
Con-
leaves are
damaged on the
So
e. g.
a few words.
Dp.
Codex
Claromontanus.
Sixth
century.
In National
Library, Paris.
dorf, 1852.
Greek-Latin.
Edited by Tischen-
Ep.
Codex
Sanger manensis.
Greek-Latin.
Ninth
century.
In
Petroof
grad.
Ixxvi
INTRODUCTION
Codex
Claromontanus.
Hence not
cited
in
the
evidence.
F.
Codex Augiensis.
Cambridge.
1859.
Ninth century.
Greek-Latin.
In Trinity College,
Edited
by
Scrivener,
See
I.
Seventh century.
421. 22.
Edited by Tischendorf
Mon.
Contains Gal.
Gp.
Codex BcBrnerianus.
brary,
thaei,
Ninth century.
Greek-Latin.
In Royal Li-
Dresden.
Edited
by Mat-
The fragments
Hbraries.
i^-'* 2^''-^^;
European
The
portion at Athos
contains Gal.
at Petrograd Gal.
i^-^o
The portions known by Tischendorf in Mon. Bd. VIII; Duchesne pubhshed the Athos
4^-5^.
in Archives des
Missons
sc.
et
and
serve
is
republished in Notices
de la Bibliothhque Nationale, vol. 33, pp. 145-192, Paris, 1890. From the offset on opposite leaves J. A.
Robinson published sixteen pages of the ms., including Gal. 427-30 2 6-10^ in Texts and Studies, vol. Ill, No. 3, Cambridge, 1895. Kirsopp Lake reproduced the Athos fragments in facsimile and a transcribed text in Facsimiles of the Athos Fragment of Codex
of the Pauline Epistles ^ Oxford, 1905.
The
citations
INTRODUCTION
of the text in this
Ixxvii
publications of
K.
L.
Codex Mosguensis.
Codex Angelicus.
in
Ninth century.
In Angelica Library
Rome.
Ninth century.
Contains Gal.
Np.
Codex Petropolitanus.
Library, Petrograd.
In
5^2-6''.
Imperial
P.
Codex Porphyrianus.
brary,
Ninth century.
Published
In Imperial Liin
Petrograd.
by Tischendorf
Mon.
'^.
At the monastery of the Laura on Mt. Athos; unpublished. See Gregory, Textkritik, p. 94; Kenyon, Textual Criticism of N. T.
p. 120.
056.
Tenth
century.
In
National
Library,
Paris.
See
Fourth or
fifth
century.
In Damascus.
Contains only
Tenth century.
See
Tenth century.
See
0151.
In Patmos.
I
Nos.
and
14, p. 1081.
The
was not
Of the approximately
six
them
in
kxviii
INTRODUCTION
however, for the most part only when they sustain the readings of the more ancient authorities, and some of them only once
or twice.
These
42, S8, 93, loi, 102, 103, 104, 122, 181, 205, 206, 209, 216, 218,
234, 242, 263, 309, 314, 3i9 322, 323, 326, 327, 328, 330, 336,
356, 4242, 429, 431, 436, 440, 442, 450, 460, 462, 463, 464, 479, 489, 605, 618, 642, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1924,
The
almost exclusively such as would be classed as pre-Syrian by Westcott and Hort. The attestation of the rival reading is in
most cases
The
pre-Syrian element
most
clearly
six mss.
At
Leicester, England.
the Leicester
Described by
the
J.
Rendel Harris
The Origin of
(Tdf. 17).
Codex of
New
Testament, Lon-
don, 1887.
Paris.
Ninth or tenth century. In National Library, " the queen of the cursives." Cited by Tischendorf in Galatians more frequently than any other
2,2,
Called
by Eichhorn
cursive.
67).
Eleventh century.
In Vienna.
It is
hand
Eleventh century.
Thirteenth century.
Rome.
442 (Tdf. 73).
1908 (Tdf. 47).
Oxford.
Eleventh century.
In Bodleian Library,
The
scripts
manuis
which Westcott
INTRODUCTION
and Hort ascribe
general.
to these groups in the
Ixxix
Pauhne
epistles in
unimportant)
13,
and
2,
6,
B
i"*8,
agree and
1- i^- ^^' ^*
12,
13,
are supported
24,
by various groups
9(2),
10,
11,
of other uncials:
16(4),
18
5(2)*,
6,
8,
12,
14(3),
^1,
.
10,
16,
15 (3)
17
(2),
21,
23 (2),
24,
25
51
(2),
3,
8(2),
9,
10,
12
(2),
13,
14(2),
15,
16,
17_
Jj^
is
2^^
riKQeV
which
is
the
reading
of
^BDFG
39,
442,
undoubtedly
6^^
an
error,
In
the
transcripof
tional
probability
against
hoiKo^vrai^
reading
SBD, but
In
clearly
on the
tion of the rival reading is so weak as to leave no room for doubt that the reading of XB is the original; in no case other than the two named is there any strong evidence for the read-
and B agree in supporting a reading unsupported by other whose text is available in eight passages, viz., 3^- ^' ^^ 49, 18, 19 ^21 510^ In 49 X and B stand quite alone. In 3^ their reading is found also in early fathers, in 3^^ in two ancient versions, Syr. (psh.) and Aeth., but in no other Greek manufc<
uncials
is
SB
unquestionably correct in
almost unquestionably
accepted or given the
rightly, except
wrong
in
preference
original text.
S and B
or both,
*
In sixteen of these S
and B
is
number
IXXX
INTRODUCTION
The
^26
52.
sometimes by both.
26.
14.
i^-
1;
20 414. 23.
25.
28
13^
xHed by
internal
evidence
The
is
preferred
"
i^*
^^
2^- ^o 423. 23
13^
ence to
i^^ 2^ 4^8,
SAP
(C
opposed to them supported by good cursives (33, 424-), versions or fathers, but by no weighty uncial authority. These nine
passages are passages the
cott
i^^^
2"-
" 3"is
^i
56
511,
15^
j^ ve of In
6^^
these
reading
probably the
original.
West-
without alternative.
In
all
one in the
NAC
In the remaining nineteen cases in which ^< and B are opposed to one another the division of evidence varies greatly.
The B
ecrre ev
423
reading seems clearly preferable in Xpto-JM Tt/ctou) 6-- ^^; the reading in
i^
3"-
^s
(els
4^ 423
(aXV)
(jueV).
is
clearly
i^
the orig-
inal,
2I6
but the
reading
425
is
probably so in
(XrfKos)
6^^;
{evayyeKi^-qTai)
328
{jdvres)
51, 20
the
reading
is original.
in 5".
In
perhaps neither
On
and
with
the whole
it
S and B support
Thus
^<
different
readings
ACP
are
to be associated with K,
DFG
N
to be with B.
agrees
seven times;
agrees with
nine times;
agrees with
twentynineteen
five times.
D
is
agrees with
t<
twenty times.
FG
agree with
sixteen times,
with
B C
twenty-two times.
or
There
a slight preponderance of
S supported by
and
with
its
various
without
INTRODUCTION
kxxi
is
ACP
is
stronger
DFG
than with
it
In the instances in
^^
is
quoted
agrees with
eight times,
ten times.
It is
be somewhat different
it is possible that the record would had been cited in all the forty-four cases in which S and B are on opposite sides. It is not within the scope of this commentary to discuss the
textual theory of
Von
it
But
this
number
one
Of the
a palpable misprint in
Von
Soden.
word as, e. g., by the Three pertain to order of words, not affecting the sense. In eleven Westcott and Hort and Von Soden adopt the same reading, but Westcott and
Nine are
differences in the spelling of a
Hort admit an alternative reading which Von Soden ignores (j8, 15, 21 26, 13. 21 ^23 ^6 51. 4. 18)^ j^ elcveu Vou Soden adopts (in
ten cases without alternative, in one with alternative) the reading to which Westcott
their
for av;
second preference: av
5ta T7]S
52
for ev vojiw
for
5t';
in 428 vfxels
eo-re
for
rjfxeis
eV/zeV; in
in
5^1
in
the margin.
is
In
eleven cases
reading which
not recogspelling
nised by Westcott
7p
for 5e;
for
KKrjpovofxrjaeL;
in
eKKaKMfiev for
in
evKaKSifiev)
3^
in 5^^ 5e for
Tap;
adds
[eV vixiv]
after eVraupco/xeVos;
M'^VP',
^\r](Tov.
in 5^^
[(J)6uol]
after (pdovoL;
of 521
none
kxxii
affects the
INTRODUCTION
meaning
of the passage further than in the shade of
In a number of instances the reading adopted by Von Soden had before the pubHcation of his text already been adopted for the present work in preference to that of Westcott and Hort.
So,
e. g.,
in i^ evayyeXi^'qTaL,
.
. .
2^^
ov^l,
321 iK voixov, 4^
dovKevetv^
428 vjjieLS
eVre.
An examination of the whole series fails to disclose any clear and constant principle underlying the text of Von Soden. But it is evident that he gives to B much less weight than do Westcott and Hort, rates ^sAC higher than they do, yet puts DFG still higher, and even at times prefers a reading supported by KLP to its rival supported by all the other uncials. For a discussion of the evidence of the ancient versions and the fathers the reader is referred to the standard treatises on Textual Criticism, such as Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments, vol. II, Leipzig, 1902; Canon and Text of the New Testament, New York, 1907; Kenyon, Textual Criticism of the New Testamenf^, London, 191 2.
IX.
This
list
BIBLIOGRAPHY.*
New Tesof
tament or
on the Life
Paul
New Testament
list
Theology.
Many
treatises
on
body
of the
commentary.
I.
COMMENTARIES.
For a
list
of Patristic
characterisation of them, see Lightfoot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 227-236; and Turner, C. H., "Greek Patristic Commentaries on
HDB,
vol.
V, pp. 484^.
Headlam, Commentary on
* The intention has been in general to give the date of the first edition of each work listed and to indicate the existence of later editions when such were published. But as not all the works cited were at hand and as first editions were often inaccessible exactness of statement can not be guaranteed in every case. The Commentaries marked with a * are of excep-
INTRODUCTION
Faber,
J.,
Ixxxiii
Paris, 1517.
Leipzig,
German
edition, 1525.
*
^
In Epistolam
S. Pauli ad Galatas
Commentarius ex Prcsledione D.
M.
Wittenberg, 1535. (Not a revised edition of the preceding, but a distinct and larger work. See preface to the ediC. Irmischer, Erlangen, 1843, i844-) Many other editions tion of
Lutheri colledus.
J.
For characterisation, see S. and H., p. ciii. Erasmus, Desiderius (Roterodamus) In Epistolam Paidi ad Galatas Para-
and
translations.
in Epistolas ad Galatas, etc. Basle, 1527. J., Adnotationes 1537. BuUinger, Heinrich, Commentarii in omnes Epistolas Apostolorum. Cajetan, Thomas de Vio, In omnes D. Pauli et aliorum Epistolas Commen-
Bugenhagen,
Lyons, 1539. tarii. Calvin, J., Commentarii in quatuor Pauli Epistolas (Gal. Eph. Phil. Col.). Geneva, 1548. * In omnes Paidi ApostoU Epistolas Commentarii. Geneva, 1565. Various later editions and translations. ejusdem Th. BezcB AnnotaBeze, Theodore de. Novum Testamentum
^ . .
St.
Paul
to the
Galatians.
Oxford, 1587.
Piscator, Johannes, Commentarii in
Herborn,
1613.
Estius, Guilelmus,
In omnes Pauli Epistolas Commentarii. Douay, 1614. Van den Steen), Commentarius in omnes D. Paidi Antwerp, 16 14. Numerous later editions.
Grotius,
Johann, Commentarius in Epistolam Paidi ad Galatas. Racov, 1628. Hugo (Huig van Groot), Annotatio7ies in Novum Testamentum.
See S. and H., p. civ. Paris, 1644. Cocceius, Johannes (Johann Koch), Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas.
Leyden, 1665.
Calov, Abraham, in Biblia Novi Testamenti illustrata. Frankfort, 1676. Locke, John, A Paraphrase and Notes on St. Paul to the Galatians, Corin-
London, 1705. thians, etc. Bengel, Johann Albrecht, in Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Tubingen, 1742. See S. and H., p. ciii. Michaelis, Johann David, Paraphrasis und Anmerkungen iiber die Brief Pauli an die Galater, Epheser, etc. Bremen, 1750. Ed. altera, 1769. Wetstein (or Wettstein), J. J., Novum Testamentum Grcecum. Amsterdam,
1751, 1752. Semler, Johann Salomo, Paraphrasis Epistolce ad Galatas,
Notis, etc.
cum
Prolegomenis,
Magdeburg, 1779.
et
Philippenses.
Ed.
Ixxxiv
INTRODUCTION
Mayer, F. G., Der Brief Fault an die Galater, etc. Vienna, 1 788. Borger, E. A,, Interpretatio Epistolce Pauli ad Galatas. Leyden, 1807.
Rosenmuller, Ernst Friedrich Karl, in Scholia in
Leipzig, 1815.
Novum Testamentum.
et
*Winer, Georg Benedict, Pauli ad Galatas Epistola. Latine vertit Annotatione illustravit. Leipzig, 182 1. Ed. quarta, 1859.
Flatt,
perpetua
Epheser.
ilber die
Briefe Pauli
an
die Galater
nnd
Paulus, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob, Des Apostels Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater- und Romerchristen. Heidelberg, 1831.
Riickert, Leopold
Immanuel, Commentar
iiber
Leipzig, 1833.
Matthies, Konrad Stephan, Erklarung des Briefes an die Galater. wald, 1833.
Usteri, L., Kommentar iiber den Galaterbrief. Zurich, 1833. Fritzsche, Karl Friedrich August, Commentarius de nonnullis Epistolce ad Galatas Locis. Rostock, 1833-4,
Schott, H. A., EpistolcB Pauli ad Thessalonicenses et Galatas. Leipzig, 1834. Olshausen, Hermann, in Biblischer Kommentar iiber sammtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Fortgesetzt von Ebrard und Wiesinger. Konigsberg, 1830-62 (Gal. 1840). E. T. by A. C. Kendrick, New York, 1858. *Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm, Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch iiber den
Gottingen, 1841 in Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar das Neue Testament, 1832-59. E. T., with bibliography, by Venables and Dickson. Edinburgh, 1873-85. Various later editions. See
,
iiber
also
under
Siefifert.
*Wette, Martin Leberecht de, Kurze Erklarung des Briefes an die Galater,
etc.
Testament, 1836-48.
Baumgarten-Crusius, Ludwig Friedrich Otto, Kommentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Galater, herausgegeben von E. Jena, 1845. J. Kimmel. Haldane, James Alexander, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1848.
Alford, Henry, in The Greek Testament
tary.
... a
Critical Exegetical
Commen-
London, 1849-61,
*Hilgenfeld, Adolph,
Der
Leipzig, 1852.
to the Galatians.
Brown, John,
*Ellicott,
An
Edin-
burgh, 1853.
Charles John,
to
Critical ajid
Paul's Epistle
editions.
the Galatians.
Jowett, Benjamin, The Epistles of St. Paid to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans. London, 1855. Edited by L. Campbell, London, 1894.
nsTTRODUCTION
Webster, W., and Wilkinson,
matical and Exegetical.
Ixxxv
New
London, 1856-60.
Bagge, H,
J. T., St.
Paul's Epistle
London, 1857.
Gottingen, 1857.
Miinster, 1857.
*Wieseler, Karl,
1859.
Commentar
ilher
Holsten, Carl, Inhalt und Gcdankengang des Pauli Briefes an die Galater,
Rostock, 1859.
Schmoller, Otto, Der Brief Pauli an die Galater.
logisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk herausgegeben
,
von J. P. Lange.
to the Galatians.
Various
Dublir
Leipzig
later editions.
E. T.
by C. C. Starbuck.
St.
Gwynne, G.
1863.
J.,
Commentary on
Paul's Epistle
in
Bunsen's Bibelwerk.
London,
2d
Reithmayr, F. X., Commentar zum Briefe an die Galater. Munchen, 1865. Carey, Sir Stafford, The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians. London, 1867.
Eadie, John, Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul
tians.
to the
Gala'
Edinburgh, 1869.
Wies-
baden, 1869.
Holsten, Carl,
Das Evangelium
des Paulus.
Th.
I.
Abth.
i,
Berlin, 1880.
Sieffert, Friedrich,
Der Brief an
Sieflfert's
KomGot-
mentar
iiber
W. Meyer.
tingen, 1880.
edition
is
Meyer
Howson,
1881.
series.
The
work
is
J. S., in
Schaff, Philip, in
Popular Commentary on
the
New
Testament.
1882.
Heidelberg, 1882.
Gutersloh, 1884.
Boise,
Critical
to
the Galatians.
Chicago, 1885.
Commentary on
Paul's Epistle
to the Galatians.
London, 1885.
Later editions.
Ixxxvi
INTRODUCTION
Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alien und Neuen Testamentes, herausgegeben von Strack und Zockler. NordLater editions.
Spicer, Studies in Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians.
lingen, 1887.
Wood, William
London, 1887.
Findlay, G. G., in The Expositor's Bible.
Baljon,
J.
New
York, 1888.
M.
S.,
Paulus
Phila-
the
New
Testament.
Colleges.
Cambridge,
Lipsius, R. A., in
Der Galaterbrief ausgelegt fur Bibelleser. Stuttgart, 1890. Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament, bearbeitet von H. J, Holtzmann et al. Freiburg, 1891. *Ramsay, W. M., A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London and New York, 1900. Rendall, Frederick, in The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. III. London and New York, 1903.
Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments.
Gottingen,
1907.
2te Aufl., 1908.
Bousset, Wilhelm, in
Cambridge, 1910.
Adeney,
W.
F., in
The
New
Century Bible.
Edinburgh, 1911.
*Emmet,
Cyril, in Reader's
Lon-
don, 1912.
MacKenzie, W. D.,
in Westminster
New
Testament.
Galatians.
to the
II.
TREATISES.
Epistle.
Paris, 1867.
I.
Perrot, Georges,
SiefTert, Galatien
De
Romana.
und
XLI,
1871.
Grimm,
Willibald,
Th.St.u.Kr., 1876.
Schurer, Emil,
Was
ist
XVIII, 1892. The Churches of Galatia, in Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. X, 1894. Clemen, Carl, Die Adressaten des Galaterbriefes, in ZwTh., 1894. Votaw, Clyde W., Location of the Galatian Churches, in BW., vol. Ill, 1894.
verstehen? in JfpT., vol.
Gifford, E. H.,
Zockler, Otto,
Wo
Paul and
INTRODUCTION
Askwith, E. H., The Epistle
to the Galatians.
Ixxxvii
An
Essay on
its
Destination
London, 1899. Weber, Valentin, Die Adressaten des Galaterhriefes. Ravensburg, 1900. lichen Theorie.
and Date.
Beweis der
rein-sild-
Steinmann, Alphons, Der Leserkreis des Galaterhriefes. Miinster i. W., 1908. Moffatt, J., Destination of Galatians (Review of Steinmann, Leserkreis des
Galaterhriefes), in
AJT.,
2,
vol.
XIII, 1909.
Epistle.
Paulus. Regensburg, 1874. Clemen, Carl, Die Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe aufs Neue untersucht.
Halle, 1893.
Rendall, Frederick, The Galatians of St. Paid and the Date of the Epistle, in
Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. IX, pp. 254-264, 1894.
to the
Galatians.
An
Essay on
its
Destination
and Date. London, 1899. Weber, Valentin, Die Abfassung des Galaterhriefes vor dem Apostelkonzil. Ravensburg, 1900. Briggs, Emily, The Date of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, in New
World, vol. IX, 1900.
Aberle, Chronologie des Apostels Paulus von seiner Bekehrung his zur Abfas-
sung des Galaterhriefes, in BZ., vol. I, 1903. Chronologie des Apostels Paulus vom Apostelkonzil
,
his
zum
Martyrertode
des Paulus in
Rom,
in
Cambridge,
Miinster
i.
W.,
With
extensive bibliography,
3.
Steck, Rudolf,
Der Galaterhrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht, nehst kritischen Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen. Berlin, 1888. Lindemann, Rudolf, Die Echtheit der paulinischen Haupthriefe gegen Stecks
Umsturzversuch
vertheidigt.
Zurich, 1889.
Vol.
I.
Tubin-
gen, 1890.
Weiss, Bernhard, The Present Status of the Inquiry concerning the Genuineness of the Pauline Epistles.
I,
1897.
Ixxi/.
Epistle.
Galaterhriefes, in
etc.
M.
S.,
De
van Paulus,
Utrecht, 1884.
Ixxxviii
INTRODUCTION
Vulgatam cum antiquioribus Versionibus
comparavit.
Berlin, 1885.
Zimmer, Friedrich, Der Galaterbrief im altlateinischen Text ah Grundlagefiir Konigsberg, 1887. einen textkritischen Apparatus der vetus Latina. Weiss, Bernhard, Die patdinischen Briefe und der Hebrderbrief im berichiigten
Text.
Leipzig, 1896.
z.
Ge-
XIV,
3.
Leipzig, 1896.
Hemphill,
W.
L.,
Codex Coxianus of
the
Commentary on Galatians.
Norwood, 19 16.
und
ihr Verhdltniss
Hamburg,
1854.
Holtzmann, H. J., Der Apostelconvent, in ZwTh., 1882, 1883. Zimmer, Friedrich, Galaterbrief und Apostelgeschichte, 1887. Hilgenfeld, A., Die neuesten Vertheidiger des Aposteldecrets, in ZwTh., 1891.
Dobschiitz, Ernst von, Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters.
Volter, D., Paiilus
Leipzig, 1904.
und seine Briefe. Strassburg, 1905. Kreyenbiihl, J., Der Apostel Paulus und die Urgemeinde, in ZntW., 1907. Bacon, B. W., Acts versus Galatians: The Crux of Apostolic History, AJT., vol. XI, 1907. For further references see p. xliv, and Lipsius, op. cit. sup.
in
III.
EPISTLE.
Rostock, 1848.
Paris,
Holsten, Carl,
,
Zum
u. Petrus.
Das Evangelium des Paulus. Th. II. Berlin, 1898. Sabatier, A., VApdtre Paul. Esquisse d'une Histoire de sa Pensie. 3d ed., 1870. E. T. by A. M. Hellier, London, 1891. Pfleiderer, Otto, Der Paidinismus. Leipzig, 1873. E. T. by Edward
London, 1877.
Cler, Samuel,
Peters,
La Notion
Der
de
Etude de ThSologie
Biblique.
Alengon, 1886.
heilige
Gloel, Johannes,
Halle, 1888.
und Ddmonologie.
Gottingen,
New
York, 1892.
Grafe, Eduard, Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz nach den vier Hauptbriefen.
Gottingen, 1893.
INTRODUCTION
Bruce, Alexander Balmain, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity.
Ixxxix
Edin-
burgh and New York, 1894. Teichmann, Ernst, Die paulinischen V orstellungen von Aufersiehung und Freiburg, 1896. Gericht und ihre Beziehung zur judischen Apokalyptik. Edinburgh, 1897. Somerville, David, St. Paul's Conception of Christ. Simon, Theodore, Die Psychologic des Apostels Paulus. Gottingen, 1897. Wemle, Paul, Der Christ und die Siinde bei Paulus. Freiburg, 1897. Feine, Paul, Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium des Paulus. Leipzig, 1899. Thackeray, Henry St. John, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish
Thought.
London, 1900.
Rechtsverhdllnisse des Apostels Paulus, in
ZntW.,
Wemle,
Tubingen, 1901.
Strassburg,
und Paulus.
Leipzig, 1902.
PThR., 1903.
Sokolowski, Emil, Die Begriffe Geist und I^ben bei Paulus.
Gottingen, 1903.
Kennedy, H. A.
1904.
New
York,
Monteil, S.
Paris, 1906.
to St.
Paul.
New
York,
Konigs-
Macintosh, Douglas
AJT.,
vol.
XIV,
Gardner, Percy, The Religious Experience of St. Paul. New York, 191 1. Dewick, E. C, Primitive Christian Eschatology. Cambridge, 1912.
et
la Foi.
Paris, 191 2.
Wetter,
Rostron,
Gillis Piton,
S.
London, 191 2. Der Vergeltungsgedanke bei Paulus. Gottingen, 191 2. Nowell, The Christology of St. Paul. London, 191 2.
St.
Westcott, F. B.,
Prat, F.
Paul and
Justification.
1913.
La
Paris, 1913.
Contains bibliography.
Paul in Terms of
Day.
Lon-
Hatch, William Henry Paine, The Pauline Idea of Faith in Jewish-Hellenistic Religion. Cambridge, 191 7.
Its Relation to
Morgan, W.
Edinburgh, 191 7.
INTRODUCTION
including
the
(i^-^o).
I.
Salutation,
apostolic
assertion of the
writer^
commission
(i^"^).
The
(who
already, under
who
taught
it
to
them
ers), affirms in
God
the Father,
making mention
the declaration or insinuation of his opponents that only a personal follower of Jesus could be an apostle, of the fact that the
lives, having been raised from the dead by the Invoking upon them grace and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, he adds to this usual element
Christ
still
Father.
men
means of salvation, which the preachers who had succeeded him in Galatia held. Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead, ^and
all the brethren that
to
are with me, to the churches of Galatia : ^grace you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, Hvho gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of
Ho
whom
Amen.
I
2
1.
GALATIANS
IlauXo? aTToaroXof;, ''Paul an apostle."
By
the addition
name, at the very opening of the epistle Paul claims to be one who is divinely commissioned to preach the gospel of Christ and authorised to plant Christianity.
of the
word airoaroXo^
to his
The
apostleship as conceived
of the
and of divine appointment in relawas committed the task of laying the foundations of the church (i Cor. 36. 10 Eph. 320) and among those who were endowed with the gifts of the Spirit for the building up of the church they constituted the highest rank These facts gave (i Cor., chap. 12, esp. v. 28; cf. Eph. 4"' 12). to them a responsibility and right above that of any other class While this was apparently generally recognised in the church. there was much controversy over the question to whom this In Paul's view they belonged responsibility and right belonged. neither exclusively to any individual nor to a college of apostles as such. The function of the apostle, neither limited on the one side to a local church, nor extended on the other to the whole world, was defined as respects each apostle or group of apostles by the divine commission which made them apostles. See Rom. i^- ^ in which S. and H. rightly translate iv iraatv toU eOvecrcv "among all the Gentiles"; i Cor. 9^;
ply isolated centres of
tion to
it.
effort,
To
the apostles
but
esp.
Gal.
2^.
Respecting
the
origin of
the
apostolic
detached
follows
evident from
what
the
epistle
who had
had been declared to be incorrect by those Paul was there, and that they had denied his right to assume the function or claim the rights This denial Paul meets, in the very salutation of an apostle. with which the letter opens, by the affirmation of his apostletent of the gospel
visited Galatia since
which he claims to possess not to the exclusion^ of others, but along with others; note the absence of the article before airoaroXo^ and cf. i^^ 2^. The title is certainly not here, and
ship,
letters,
a mere
title
h
of dignity,
is
essential to the
i^ I
Cf.
Cor.
i^ 2
Cor.
i*
Rom.
Thes.
2^, etc.
ovK air
avOpayircov ovBe Bl
avOpcoTrov
through man."
The
first
had a human
a
had come
him through
an apostle, but to have an apostleship which is in no sense inThis fact is important for the direct, dependent, or secondary.
understanding of the whole personal portion of the
letter.
It is
Paul himself in holding that the right of self-directed presentation of the gospel,
Apparently,
also,
much
the
number
church.
With
was
false
Twelve no true apostle. It is not wholly clear in which class Paul's critics had placed him. But the nature of his reply, in which he denies with emphasis any kind of dependence on men in general (i^' "),
and a perverter
or the apostles in particular
mentioned in
combined with the facts makes it probable that his opponents looked upon him, not indeed as having been commissioned as an apostle by the Twelve, but as one who having received instruction from them had perverted their teaching, and thereby deprived himself of all right as a Christian teacher. His claim to be an apostle they would doubtless have
(i^^1^),
i^^-^'*
in themselves considered,
Barnabas or Mark might have done, with the assertion that he was true to the teaching of the Twelve, but
GALATIANS
human
dcTc6
human
channel.
The
preposition
it is
form; hence
By
ojx ix'
The phrase
to
is evidently qualitative, denying human way without of itself directing the mind Even the generic plural with the article,
ol (i'vOptoxot, is
of the race,
existing,
men thought
See Mt.
of as actually
^^'
s^^'
^'
^^'
'^
Rom.
i4i
clearly
and emphatically
iStxc'av
.
dvGpwxwv,
dvGpuxtov
also
Cor.
2^,
[jL-f)
ev
co(picf
not in
26.
broad sense that Paul uses the phrase here. Yet vv. ^^' " leave no doubt that in using it he has especially in mind the primitive apostles, or the Christian church in
It is in this
Mt.
15= 2 1 25.
it
being from
the singular
is
much
ot'
like
manner, although
dvOpwxou
is
human
agency, and
man"
than "through
a man."
Rom.
i"' 3^
2.
Though
to set forth his conception of the nature or mission of Christ, yet his
reflects his
The
close
antithesis
between ouBe
is
Si'
dvOptoxou
and
even
though to the
latter
association of
'IrjaoQ
after
the one
distinguished Jesus
Christ from men; not indeed in the sense that he denied that he was
man
(cf.
Cor.
1521),
but that
this
term did not state the whole, or Even had Paul believed
his fellow apostles,
he
xaTp6q, or even
dXka
Sia twv
xaTp6(;.
I,
5
is
stylistic, it
human
source of authority as composed of a group of men, and of the agent The plural may, indeed, be in of its transmission as a single person.
some measure due to the fact that the source of authority which he had particularly in mind to deny was a group, the apostles. But there Zahn interprets ouBe is no corresponding explanation of the singular. St' dvepuxou as a denial of a charge that he had received his apostleship through a certain unnamed person, most probably Barnabas. But
this
view overlooks the fact that Paul is here denying, not that he way in which they alleged he had, but
it
They did not it if it were genuine. your apostleship from men, and through a man, therefore it is not genuine," but " You should thus have received it," and Paul's answer is that he received it in a way far above this, which made human source and human agency wholly superfluous.
have received
Blcl
aXka
'It^o-oO
God
^piarov kol deov irarpd^ "but through the Father." Three facts are specially
(i)
speaking not
simply of a source of his apostleship between which and himself there intervenes an agent, but of the channel through
which
^lr](Tov
it
came
to him, or of the
;
immediate source
/cal
of it (see
on
meanings
of Sid below)
(2)
the addition of
Oeov Trarpo^; to
l^pLarov, showing that he is not thinking simply of the agency through which his apostleship came to him, but also of the source, than which, being ultimate, there can be no higher;
(3) the governing of both substantives by the one preposition but once expressed, showing that Jesus Christ and God the
rela-
but are conceived of jointly and as susTaken together, therefore, the whole ex-
God God
the Father."
Had
if
meaning "directly from Jesus Christ and he thought of Christ as the agent and
of
as the source he
must have written Bia 'lyaov XpLCTTov kol God and Christ, as jointly source only, 'Kptcrrov kol deov Trar/ao'?, which, however, would
to Sc av6po)7rov, since
left
would have
of a
human
channel.
6
Aid:
GALATIANS
with the genitive, in addition to
relations, expresses
its
and temporal
means
personal object merges into the idea of agency; but in three ways: (a)
of the spatial sense of the preposition " through," the governed substantive being thought of as standing
of
affected,
and as
(b)
g.,
Rom.
i^ 51 i
Cor.
21" et freq.
The
Zi& is used
is
at the
and agent;
the agent
and the
is
also source
is
separately
s. v.
See Th.
(c)
A.
Cor.
i.
The
is
idea of
(viz.
ultimate source,
necessary
and renders
it
possible.
So,
e.
g.,
Acts
Rom.
is
i is'o I
8t'
Thes. 4K
Std:
In the phrase
since source
of
dtvOpwxou,
separately expressed
by
dex' dv0pa)TCO)v,
man
by which Paul became an apostle is excluded by the obvious But the ^i& with 'lYjaoO XptatoO, though evidently suggested by the use of Btdt with dvOpwxou, is used rather with the second meaning (b). The idea of mediateness is not required by any antithetical ix6, and in respect to Oeou xaTp6<;, which is also governed by this same Std, the idea of mediateness is excluded, since it can not be supposed that the apostle thinks of a more ultimate source than God of which God is the agent.* Nor is it probable that the idea
the action
of mediateness
is
'l-qaoi)
XptaToO, since
it;
neither
is
bound together under the government of one preposition, which probably therefore has the same force with both of them. The whole phrase 8ca 'ItqjoO xaTp6<;
instead the two substantives are closely
. . .
is
Bt'
dev0p(oxou only,
and
dvBptoxou.
e'/c
veKpoiv^
"
By
S4.
this
characterisation
:
of
the
his
fiev,
to. /u.ev
avrov,
to. Se
vno deov
Si avTov
He
man
is created both by and through God, the irrational parts of the soul by God but not through God, being produced through the reasoning power that rules in the soul.
I,
readers,
an
was not a follower of Jesus Jesus rose from the dead, and that it was the had given him his commission.
apostle because he Of the apostle's motive
for
who
adding
have been
See a considerable number of them in Sief. That of Wies., who regards the reference to the resurrection as intended to substantiate on the one hand the superhuman nature and divine sonship
many
theories.
of Jesus,
of Jesus
which
is implied in ouSe St' (ivOpwxou and in the association with the Father, and on the other hand the fatherhood of
est
God, intrudes into the sentence a Christological and theological interxaigdq which is quite foreign to its purpose. The words o^Se undoubtedly reflect incidentally the apostle's conception of God and
. . .
lishing the
Christ, but they are themselves introduced for the purpose of estabmain point, Paul's independent apostleship, and it is wholly
eyet'pavToq, etc.,
were injected
Sief. himself, taking in to confirm the incidentally reflected thought. general the same view, goes beyond probability in supposing that the
phrase conveys a reference to the resurrection of Christ as that through which God manifested his paternal love to the Son in the highest degree
and established him in the full status of Son, this fact being in turn the basis on which Paul's call into the apostleship is made possible. The evident emphasis of the sentence upon Paul's apostleship, its independence and
it,
its validity,
makes
it
Nor
is
the
fact that Tou lyefpavToc; limits eeou Tcaxpdq sufficient to set this objecHaving, according to his usual custom (enforced in this tion aside.
case
by
names
of Christ
and God
closely
which he could then make reference to the fact of the resurrection without inconvenient circumlocution was by a phrase limiting OsoQ xaxpdq. A similar objection holds against most
way
in
of the interpretations
enumerated by
Sief.,
of Beet,
who
when
raising Jesus
from
the dead, with a view to the proclamation of the gospel throughout the world, was himself taking part personally in the mission of the
apostles.
The word
dead.
lyefpw
it
is
in this sense 35 times, in 10 instances in the active, in 25 in the passive (exclusive of Eph. and the pastorals), only twice in any other sense (Rom. 13" Phil. i^O- He employs iv{aTT][i,t of rising
He
uses
from the dead in i Thes. 4"- " only. In the gospels and Acts both terms are used with approximately equal frequency, except that Mt. has a decided preference for sYsfpto (pass.), using ivftj-cTj^xt but once,
5
though
it
GALATIANS
appears as a variant in three other passages
little
also.
There
is
apparently
The
dv(aTir)[jLt
affects the
a rising up from a recumbent position, but this distinction terms as used of the resurrection from the dead at most
Both verbs are frequently For lyec'po) (act.), see Rom. 4'^ 8^^ 10'; (pass.), Rom. 6*- ^ I Cor. 151=. 20, Only rarely do ex twv vexpwv (see i Thes. V>, where, however, AC omit xdiv and WH. bracket it, and Eph. 5<, a
by
ex vexpwv.
quotation from some unidentified source) and dxb twv vexpwv (Alt. 14-) The omission of the article is probably due to the expression occur.
being a fixed prepositional phrase.
the
Pauline Epistles,
p. 25,
Chicago, igi8.
"and all the brethren The term "brethren" is one which accordetfreq. in Paul; Jas. i^
i^;
i
Thes.
Jn.
i4
Cor.
12^;
Pet.
512
3" Rev.
Clem. Rom.
Ign. Philad.
5^
much
less
frequent in the early fathers than in N. T.) usually meant "fellow-Christians." See below on v. ". The fact that it is Paul's
usual habit to join with himself in the address of a letter one or
companions and fellow-labourers (see esp. i and cf. 1620; 2 Cor. i^ and cf. 131^' 12; Phil. ji, and cf. 421. 22 Col. i^ and cf. 410' 12. 14)^ the distinction which he apparently makes in Phil. 421. 22 between "the brethren with him" and the resident Christians, and the fact that a temporary sojourner in a place would more naturally refer to the residents of the place
of his closest
ii
two
Cor.
whom
am
me," makes
it
(so
Hilg., Ltft.,
Ell.,
Beet).
The purpose
in
named took any part in the composition of the letter, we are unable now to detect their part, or even that they had any such. Even in
I Thes. where Paul uses the first person plural in the first two chapters and part of the third {cf. Frame on i. i) it is probable that while the
I,
I,
9
at the beginning, they
pronoun at first includes the took no actual part in the composition of the letter, being only in the background of his thought, as 2'^ itself shows. But in Gal. the almost uniform use of the first person singular for the author, not only in narrative passages (such as 112-19. "." 21-1" 413-15) and in those in which
the pronoun might be supposed to be rhetorically used for the Christian believer as such (2I8-"), but in those in which the writer speaks of
himself as such, referring to what he
^i,
15.
companions named
is
at the
moment
saying
(i-
i"-
^^-
'"
17
41,
12,
16-ji ^2,
3,
10-12,
16
517)^
The first person plural is in the writing of the letter. Jews," or " we Christians." Only in i^. can it be taken as an epistolary plural referring to Paul himself (see Dick, Der schrijtstcllerische Plural bei Paidus, 1900), and even here more probably (see
any partnership
usually
"we
of the apostle
and
his
companions.
moment
but when he was preaching in here referred to were his companions in Galatia is rather improbable, since had those who shared with him in the preaching of the gospel in Galatia been with the apostle at the moment
me"
of writing
it is
them
Silas.
in the letter
least as
much
no other reference to than this obscure one, they would have received at recognition as in i Thes. Paul gives to Timothy and
it
Nor does
of
seem
The
mention
them seems
the impli-
cation that the brethren were aware of his writing the letter, and were
not averse to being mentioned in it. The question who these brethren were
is,
nected with the question where and when the letter was written. If it was written to the churches of southern Galatia from Corinth on
the second missionary journey (see Introd., pp. xlvii/.)
none who were more probably included than who were with Paul in Macedonia and Achaia on
into that region (i Thes.
If it
ii 3-
Silas
'
'
Thes.
i^ 2
Cor.
Acts
i80-
was written from Antioch between the second and third journeys, Timothy or Titus was very likely among those referred to. Both were with Paul on the latter journey (2 Cor. ii 21'). Titus had been with
Paul in Antioch before the writing of this letter (Gal. 2^), perhaps about three years before, and was sent by him to Corinth in connection with the trouble in the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 2". i 7" 12I8), probably about three years after the writing of the letter to the Galatians,
if it
was written
trace.
at Antioch;
we can not
If it
but his movements in the interval was sent from Ephesus or Macedonia, there is
lO
a
still
GALATIANS
wider range of possibilities
(i
Cor.
"
1610-12.17
Cor.
i^
2<
That the Galatians knew who were referred to, or would be informed by those who bore the letter, is rendered probable by the very omission of the names. On the use of the term dSsXtpdq, see on I'l.
8i6-2<,
Tat9 eKKXr^dCai^
tia."
tt)?
On
On
the use of
word
N. T. see detached
The most notable characteristic of this salutation is the total lack of such commendatory words as are found in the address of all other PauHne letters (see below). This is commonly and doubtless rightly explained as reflecting the apostle's perturbation of mind mingled with indignation against
note, p. 417.
Cf.
on Oavfid^co,
-rfj
v.
^
edaaXovtxiwv
in 2 Thes.
Iv 6e(p xarpl
and
sxxXiQattjc
xal
xup((j) 'It)(joO
-fjixoiv
after
izoczpi
In
and
i'x.vX-qaiqi
toO 0eou
x'n ouaf]
adding
fjYtaattivoiq
sv XptaT(p 'IiQaou,
etc.
xXtqtoc<;
etc.,
the
None
from Rom. on, have the term IxxXiQafa in the address, but
mem-
aytoi;.
3. %a/3i? vfJLLP
Kol
elprjvr}
of the benediction
opening salutation, usually forming the words of it. The first word is perhaps connected with the common Greek salutation %at/oeiz^, with which also the Ep. of Jas. begins (Jas. i^, cf. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, pp. 30,
letter is included in the
if
so, is
elprjVT) is
utation,
word which represents the Semitic salHebrew, "Ou^, Aramaic, OT^, used both in personal
the Greek
this
greeting (Lk. lo^ 24^^) and at the beginning of a letter (Ezr. 4^^
5^).
Yet
it
religious significance
than
commonly bore
is
among
the Hebrews.
%a/ot9 is a
God towards
men which
I,
2-4
%/3i?.
II
and 424.
out the article because the thought of the sentence calls for a qualitative not an individualising representation of grace and
peace.
CLTTO
C/.,
6^^.
deov Trarpo^
kol Kvplov
'Irjcrov X/3i<TT0i),
" from
God
They are tion of every Pauline letter except i Thes. and Col. undoubtedly to be taken as hmiting both %a/3t9 and elprjvT]. It is characteristic of the apostle's method of thought that he
joins together
God
Lord as
jointly
Any attempt
to discriminate sharply
of these blessings
bestowment
apostle's thought.
The
entire
God
may
be gracious to
them,
may
brings salvation,
and that
(as
a consequence) they
may
be in
a state of spiritual well-being. Concerning Oeov Trarpo^^ see detached note, on Uar'^p as applied to
God pp. 384 #, and on Kvpiov as apphed to Christ, see detached note on the Tiiles and Predicates of Jesus, pp. 399 Jf.
'HtAwv stands after xaTp6q in
Ambrst.; after
xupt'ou in
:^:^
al plu.
20 fu. demid.
Chr.
1908, al 20 fere
g Vg. Syr.
Arm. Goth.
is
The
external evidence
may
be
as Western, or
it
may
be AlexCor.
i
andrian and
its
rival
non- Alexandrian.
see
Rom.
i'
2
Cor.
i 2
Eph. i 2 Tim.
against
Phil. i Col. 1=
I'
it.
Phm.
3 (contra
Eph. 6"
Thes.
is
i i
Tim.
i^
Tit.
i^),
certainly not
is
On
slightly
on the
side of xaTpbq
4.
rjjxSiv
''who gave
In
itself
may
12
GALATIANS
of
with deliverance from sin as to leave no reasonable doubt that he here refers especially
2^0,
if
Rom.
5^' ^ i
means
(to achieve
someof sin
on men and the relation of Jesus' death to it, as elsewhere expressed, and the following expression, oTrco?
and
its effects
irovqpov, leave
sins is
no doubt that in his thought deliverance from that which is to be achieved in respect to them. Since
power of sin over one's hfe (Rom. 6^-") and from the condemnation under which it brings men (chap.
liverance both from the
2 13,
14
be in
this
5 9. 10)^ either of
may
forensic aspect
But as the association of the death with the somewhat more frequent in Paul, and as it is
is
phase which
prominent in
this epistle, it is
probably
this
mind
here.
On
the meaning of
On
^pelav:
"So
10. 6^:
TsX^wq
-jcapcfe
tolq
TcoXkolc; i-K-qk-Kiajfiivaq:
"He
undertook
affairs
fectly hopeless";
referred to
i Mac. 2"f- and exx. from papyri and inscriptions by Nageli, Wortschatz, p. 50, in none of which does it seem
to
mean
to lay
down
one's
life.
On
2.
144
SoOvai
'{'ux^v
ai-coO
in
Mk. io Mt.
and Smith,
114^.
The
it is
"over"
not so used in N. T.
chap. 2"
common
The
use there
in the sense
"on
See,
by a personal term.
Cor. i"
Rom.
$*^-.
noun gives
it
telle force,
for,
or in respect
With
is
God";
i*,
Ttjq f)^d)v
xapa-
h 4
%k-{]aeii)q,
2^',
13
may
euBoxfat;.
"both the
is
willing
and
God)." Cf. also Jn. 6^' Rom. 15' i6< 2 Cor. 13' Eph. 6'o 2 Thes. i Heb. 13''. With a^iap-zidv and words of similar import, the meaning " on behalf of " naturally becomes not " for the promotion of," but " for the deliverance from," or with the genitive -Jj^xtov following, "to deliver us from our sins." The possibility that the apostle had in mind a still
more
definite
meaning can
al.
nor established.
K''BH33,424'
read uxip.
is
S*ADFGKLP
is
50 fere read
xept.
The
latter
testimony
Cf. Introd.
p. Ixxx.
Intrinsic probability
though Paul
uses both prepositions with both meanings, "concerning" behalf of," he employs
n:ep(
and "on
and b%ip
OTTft)?
in the latter.
e/c
i^eXTjTac 97/xa?
ala)vo<;
ii>e<TT(OT0<;
irovrjpov
evil age."
On
and iveaT(i)<; see detached notes pp. 426, 432. The phrase o aiwv 6 ivearm, here only in N. T., but manifestly the equivalent of the more usual o alwv 0UT09, is primarily a phrase
as distinguished
evil character is
alcov 6 fieXXcov.
12^,
Its
Cor.
i^o
and Rom.
is
and apttoi^t^/jo?
the adjective
emphasis.*
Cf.
Acts
71- ^* 12^^
23"
26^^, in all
which
It
word
is
of rescue.
The whole
sins,
of these
all
words
(v.
^)
at this point
is itself
fact.
In
introduced by an
interesting parallel, the only other observed instance of albiv eveard';, is found in an inscription of 37 A. d., 015 av tov rjStcrTou a.v&pui-noiq at(Li'o(s) vvv evfaTooTOi (Dittenberger, Sylloge, 364. g) quoted by M. and Voc. s, v., who suggest that aiiav means "period of life," but without obvious ground; it seems clearly to mean "age" (of human history).
;
An
14
GALATIANS
The
its
is
undoubtedly occasioned by the nature of the erroneous teaching which was propagated
men
among
which
their
by the judaising opponents of Paul, and was written to combat. As in opposition to personal attack on him he affirmed his independent aposthe Galatians
this letter
way
God.
It remains to
is (a) ethical,
Rom.
8^),
Rom. 5 'a- "),or (c) eschatological, being deliverance from the wrath of God which will fall upon the wicked at the coming of the Lord " Rom. s'^). There is no doubt that Paul held the {cf. I Thes. 52.
3.
9.
current Jewish doctrine of the two ages (see detached note on A((jv,
and though he never]definitely places the coming of the Lord in judgment on the wicked and salvation for believers at the boundaryline between the two ages, his language is most naturally understood as implying this, and there is in any case no doubt that in his thought salvation was achieved in the full sense not before but at the coming of the Lord {cf. Rom. 5' 13" i Thes. loc. cit.). The associations of the
p. 426),
Nor can
is
it
usually associated
(so
by Paul
cf.
Zahn;
Rom.
51" 6^ I
Cor.
i5i2ff-
Phil. 310).
For though
59is
>",
this
is
is
true, it is also
closely associated
Thes.
v.
*)
coming
of the
Lord
There
{cf.
definitely
made
to result from
are,
chiefly eschatological.
The
present age is to end coming of the Lord. Salvation at that time consists not in deliverance from this age, but from the wrath of God. Had the aposfirst is
The
at the
tle's
it is
in
Rom.
s*"- ",
definitely eschato-
logical,
6pYfi(;
Eicdx;
I^^XTjTat
^^aq ixb
is
t^(;
found
I,
4
of the epistle.
15
Its
in the general
thought
is
concentrated on the
fore, that in
way
of acceptance with
God
it is
and
indirect;
improbable, there-
under the influence of the controversial situation with which the epistle deals, the idea of the salvation achieved at the coming of the Lord
should
fill
conceptions,
As between the judicial and the ethical a prominent place it is doubtful whether we should exclude either (c/. on
i]\i.
6xep
X.
&[>..
above).*
To
would be to exclude that aspect of the significance of Christ's death which the apostle usually emphasises (see Rom. 3"' s'-i" Gal. 31'), and which precisely in this epistle, which deals so largely with justification, we should least expect to be forgotten. But, on the other hand, the appropriateness of the words to describe the ethical aspect, and the absence of any phraseology expressly limiting the thought to the judicial aspect (as, e. g., in Rom. 8^ and Gal. 3"), seem to forbid the exclusion
of the former.
trans-
forming power of Christ with his death clearly appears from Gal. 2"' " and Rom. e^"- " (c/. also a clear expression of this idea in i Pet. i"- ").
we must include the judicial aspect, and not exThat the apostle has the law chiefly in mind as an element of the present evil age from which the Christ by his death is to
Probably, therefore,
clude the ethical.
deliver
men
(see Bous.
ad
loc.)
is
thought
itself is
un-Pauline (see
is
Rom.
10^),
characteristic of
it
was the
Kara to
will of
ti/jlcov,
our
God and
Father."
whole complex idea expressed by rov B6vto<^ , . irovrjpov (Trovrjpov alone is manifestly out of the question), can not be decisively
taken as limiting
(a) Bovto^; or (b) i^eXrjrai,, or (c), the
determined.
is
own
whom
he
is
writing.
essentially the
same
The idea of removal from the present life by death or translation is itself naturally suggested by the words e/c t. at. t. ivear. iroi'., but is rendered improbable by the usage of the word e^e\r)rai. (see above) and decisively excluded by the wholly un-Pauline character of
the thought that the salvation through Christ shortens the earthly
life
of the saved.
GALATIANS
pronouns
tj^imv
and
r^fia^ in v.'*
his readers)
through Christ's
gift of
God our
and the
gift
and
see
detached note
on
IlaT'}]p as applied to
5.
/.
a/irjv. " to whom be An ascription of praise to
rj
Bo^a
et?
Amen."
God
through
See Th.
and Kennedy,
Its sense
classic times,
and
is fre-
quent in N. T.
The
article,
when
been mentioned; in
Christ.
I
this case,
Cf.
Rom.
ii^s
no doubt, the redeeming work of 16" Eph. 321 Phil. 420 2 Tim. 4I8 Heb. 1321
2^^
Pet. 4^^
Contrast Lk.
may
Rom.
The
^nd perhaps
in 2 Pet. 3^^,
gested above.
Alcov, p. 426.
'A[).i]v
On
on
(Heb.
ICN,
an adverb
derived from
is
ids
"to be firm,"
N. T. vocabukry from the Hebrew. It is used in O. T. as confirming an oath (Num. 5" et al.), as the solemn conclusion and confirmation of a doxology (Neh. 8 Ps. 41", etc.), and otherwise. The Lxx usually translate it by ylvotTo, but occasionally transliterate (i Chron. i6' Neh.
carried over into the
5 8 I
Esd.
9^'
Tob.
8' i40,
of a doxology or benediction.
but none of these instances are at the end This usage, of which 3 Mac. 7" (see also
4 Mac. 182^) apparently furnishes the earliest example, may have arisen from the custom of the congregation responding "Amen" to the prayer
offered
3", also
8 i
Cor.
141s,
and Frame on
Thes.
On
h 4-5
N. T,
letters,
17
and the methods of beginning letters current among Jewish, and early Christian writers, see extended and instructive note in Hilgenfeld, Der Galaterbrief, 1852, pp. 99 Jf.; also respecting the classical Greek and Latin forms, Fritzsche on Rom. 1 1; Wendland, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, III 3, Beilage 15, pp. 411 /.; Ziemann, Dc Epistidarum graecarumformulis, in Diss. phil. Hal.
Greek,
Roman,
XVIII
4, 1910.
Frame on
I'hes.
See also Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, pp. 30, 31. The following are typical examples: IlXdiTwv 'ApxuT(jc TapavTcvw eu xpdtTxstv (Epistle IX, Ed. Hermann, p. 58). M. Cicero salutem dicit P. Lentulo Procos.
(Ed. Mueller,
IV
i,
pp.
i ff.);
5^);
xolq
ATyuxTov 'louSaiotq
xfj
'louBalot v.aX oX ev
ol ev T]^ 'louSafqc
X"??
tt^";
Mac.
.
ji).
xoiigziv xal ^ yspoujfa xal 'loGSaq 'AptaTogouXtp KXauStoq Auat'aq Tcp y.paT{jT(j) T}ye[JL6vt l>iX{x.t xal uyta{vecv (2 Mac. 1^).
xal
Xai'petv
(Acts
2326; c/.
"tJi-'v
Acts
1523).
'IwAvtqi; xatq
i*).
exxa
exxXirjafac? 'zalq ev
'^a^ etpiQVTj
(Rev.
noXuxapxoq
'J[JlIv
Tfj ex/.XT]afqc
Tou 6eo0
T'n
xapoixouai]
4>tXixxoic;.
eXeoq
xal
eJpigvTQ
xapd:
6eou
(Polyc. Phil.).
The
following,
Ylokuv.gii.'zriq
from Milligan's
Twt xaxpl
[a]
Selections,
show the
xXecaxa
yjxigziv.
'AxoXXcivtoq IIto-
Tto
xaxpl xaigz\y.
'IXapicov
Xic(petv.
These and other examples cited by the writers above referred to (i) that both Greeks and Romans, if not also the Hebrews, frequently began a letter with the writer's name; (2) that the naming of the
show
person or persons addressed, usually in the dative, but sometimes in the vocative, w^as the general custom among Greeks, Romans, and
Hebrews;
to
Xafpstv,
(3)
it
or
if
writing in Greek,
among
the Greeks
>.^yet,
salutem with or without dicit; (4) that the early Christian writers followed in general the usages then current in the Roman world, but in
the exercise of that liberty which these usages themselves sanctioned,
combined elements derived on the one side from the Greek custom and on the other from the Hebrew, and introduced also distinctly Christian elements. As a result there seems to have been created almost a standard Christian form (note the resemblance between the salutation
of the Pauline letters, those ascribed to Peter, 2
tion of Rev.
I*,
and 3 Jn., the salutaand those used by Clem. Rom. and Polycarp), yet one
which was freely modified by each writer in adaptation to the particular Note the variations from the usual
form in
2
Jas.
letters,
of salutation in
Jn.
GALATIANS
and Heb., though these
letters in
latter are
the
dates of the literature would suggest that Paul exerted a special influ-
slavish,
Expression of indignant surprise at the threatened ahandonment of his teaching by the Galatians, in
which
to
except
had received
it
of accept-
indignation at those
who
occasion of the
called
you in
is
who
are troubling
if
to pervert the
^But even
we
you,
him
be accursed.
^As we said
to
now I say
which ye
received, let
him be accursed. ^^For am I now seeking the favour of men, or of God? Or am I now seeking to please men? If I were still pleasing
men I
vjjLCL'^
6. ^avfjid^co
on
ovrco^
Ta')(e(a<;
iieiarCOeaOe
cltto
tov KoXecav-
T09
iv %a/3iTt XpL(7T0v
"I
marvcl
called
that
ye
are
so
quickly turning
Christ."
you
in the grace of
clearly that
The present tense of the verb fJLerarLOeaOe indicates when the apostle wrote the apostasy of the Gala-
tians
point, or
process.
in the
They were,
so to speak,
on the
very
act, of turning.
The mind
wavers while he writes between hope and fear as outcome (4^' 5^). The word ra^eW might conceivabl}'refer to the rapid development of the apostatising movement But it is equally suitable to the usage after it was once begun. of the word to take it in the sense of "soon" (cf. i Cor. 4" Phil. 219, 24 ]^^ ^25 -^^^ g39)^ and it is certainly far more probable
of the apostle
to the
is
The point from which this which seems to the apostle so brief, is reckoned is left unstated, but that of which one most naturally thinks in speakthan of the rapidity of the process.
interval,
ing of an apostasy
is
which
is
now abandoned
by
arrrb
in
and
this is
also suggested
erepov evayyeXtou^
by
this expression
here
made
if it
who
called
you
On
cf.
this order of
and
Gal. 3".
words see BMT 427; Gild. Synt^ The thought thus yielded would morehis grace.
But Paul's must be regarded as a decisive objection to referring the phrase to Christ (as is done by Hier. Luth. Calv. Beng. et al.; cf. Wies. and Sief. ad loc.) or to Paul (as by Paulus, cited by Wies.), and as a convincing reason for here referring it to God (so Chrvs. Wies. Mey. Sief. Ell.
was from Christ and
Ltft.).
The verb \i.zxaxi^r^^i, meaning in the active, "to transfer," "to remove" (see,e. g.,Heb. ii^ or "to alter," "to pervert" (Jude4), is used
in the middle or pass, with various constructions in the sense
"to
t-})v
change
[one's opinion]".
:
Hdt.
y'*:
eyd)
ti.lv
YvtdiiTjv iJLeTaTfOe^jLac
"I myself
am
my opinion;"
20
GALATIANS
Plato, Rep. 345 B: ^a^egdq, [xsTaTcOejo xal ^-^aq
[x:f)
e^ax(4Ta:
"Change
Mac.
xdiv
y^^, it
means
dxb
2^.
With
Sief
who
himself
to
mean
it
began."
In
"calling" to
4^ 5^^ 2
God (Rom.
Cor. !
Gal.
i^^ i
Thes.
12
3"
Tim. 1 9, using the verb v-aXiia; Rom. 11" i Cor. i^' Eph. jis Phil. Tim. i9, using xX^atq), and never, except in the sense of "naming"
The main
features of the
predetermined purpose (Rom. S^a-so Tim. i '); an act of grace, not in accordance with men's deserts (Gal. ii^; c/. 2 Tim. i^); it is the divine initiative of the Christian life (i Cor. 7"-"), by which God summons men into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ (i Cor. i^; cj. Rom. S^-^"), to live in sanctification (i Thes. 4O, and peace (i Cor. 71^ Col. 315), and to attain unto salvation (2 Thes. 21^, God's kingdom and glory (i Thes. 212; cj. also i Tim. 61==). Though always spoken of as God's act, it may take place through the
2
cited.
Thes.
men
(2
it is
doubtless to the
and "calling"
is
in general such as to
who obeyed
the divine
summons
speaks.
(see esp.
Rom.
8=8-30)
he never
Yet the present passage evidently speaks of the Galatians as on the point or in the act of turning from him who had called them.
This apostasy, moreover, the apostle evidently regarded as a most serious matter, vitally affecting their relation to Christ (see esp. 52-O.
It
who were
called
were
su.rely
life.
On
Th.
the meaning of
see
on
v.'.
5d), or
its
In either
that which
is
manifested in his
gift of
himen-
men, and
is
conceived of specially in
kingdom of God; in the latter case, it is that on the ground of which, by virtue of which, men are called; in the former case, it is that by which the calling takes place. To these views there is no decisive objection either in the usage of the phrase "grace of
trance into the
I,
21
Christ" (see
(see
Cor. 8'
Rom.
5^')
But
its
(a)
Thes.
5^^ 2
Thes. 3^^;cf.
the benedictions in connection with the salutation (b) In the expression xaXlw Iv as used elsewhere
by Paul (Rom. 9^ does not properly come into account, being from sense of the the Lxx, and xaXiw not being used in its special Pauline
divine call into the kingdom), Iv
is
except possibly in
marks
its
object as
when he is the state or sphere in which the one called is, either (i) In this latter call. called (i Cor. 718.20.24), or (2) as the result of his "call to be in" case the phrase is pregnant and bears the meaning
(i
Thes. 4'
in
I
Cor.
7'=
dq
Cor.
Thes. 2").
Eph. 4'; cf. Th. Iv I 7, and Usage evidently favours the metais
evidently
the not the sphere in which the Galatians were when they were called, pregnant use of the phrase is the more probable, (c) The sense yielded the state in which the for this passage by taking x&pixi as referring to
is
much more
In speaking of a
change of position on their part, it is more natural to refer to the state emphasise the in which by God's call they are or should be than to The remarkable and surprising fact basis or instrument of God's call. about their apostasy was that they were abandoning the position of objects of grace, i. e., the relation towards God which made them the the grace of Christ and participators in its benefits, to put themselves
under law, which could only award them their sad deserts. On Paul's view of the nature of the change cf. $' 3"'"- It is a further objection of by to the view that Iv is basal that while redemption is conceived Paul as based on the work of Christ (Rom. 3^"), it is difficult to suppose
that he would speak of God's call as being on the ground of the grace It is rather his thought that the work of Christ has its basis of Christ.
in the love of
God.
See
Rom.
s^^-.
Nor
is
of
God
of this
by means of Christ's grace materially easier, for the expansion into "the announcement of the grace of Christ" is unwarranted
is
due
This in turn emphasises the folly of the conindividualising force. duct of the Galatians. This shade of meaning can not well be expressed because of in English (which requires a definite article before "grace" the phrase that follows it) except by some such periphrasis as, "I marvel that ye are so quickly turning
away from
22
ctV
GALATIANS
Tpov cvayyeXtop/'unto a different gospel."
of the
On
the
meaning
word hepov,
On
the
It is evident that in
it is
mind.
The
life
known have
work.
to
do with the
methods
of
They pertained
the significance
rather to the
way
of acceptance with
God and
The preposition et? denotes mental direction (cf. Acts. 26^^ Rom. 2* I Tim. i^) and in view of the meaning and tense of
fieraTiOea-Oe
signifies
That Paul
for it the
calls
name
it
may
even have
described
in contrast
apply to it the term "gospel" appears in what follows. 7. 6 ovK eariv aXKo^ el /jlt] "which is not another except in
the sense that."
The
. .
.
relative o should
undoubtedly be taken
ment fMeraTiOeade
and the use
upon hepov
aXXo
gests, to erepov
The
clause
is
thus
a qualification of the preceding statement, intended to exclude the possible implication that that which the Galatians were
urged to accept was really a gospel which might legitimately be
On el fir} meaning "except" and introducing not a protasis but an exception, see Th. el, III 8 c; BMT 274, 471. On el jiri meaning "except that," see Mk. 6^ Rom. I4l^ and cf. Th. el, III 8 b.
substituted for that which Paul preached.
03x
SckXo
ei
[i-i]
is
else
e!
than" by Winer
Ill 8 c
e),
Grimm
(Th.
ARV.
I,
6-7
see also below),
23
being in this case
marg., and
Ram.
(first
choice;
eiayyekiov.
To
in
It
makes the
antithesis
is
dental, which
between exepov and SXko only seeming and acciview of Paul's usage rather improbable. See below
on N. T. usage of these words. (2) It necessitates the supposition that Paul left the application of the term euay-^iXioy to the teaching to the whole preof the judaisers unretracted. (3) The reference of ceding sentence is awkward and improbable. Following immediately upon gxspov zuayyiliov, and agreeing with it in gender and number, could scarcely be taken by the reader otherwise than as referring to
to refer to the entire preceding If Paul had intended would naturally have written a (c/. 4-*) or xouto ydtp laxtv or the sense "not other ToOxo M laxtv.* (4) It gives to oOx SXko el than" (denying qualitative distinction), which is unsustained by usage. For See for classical writers Jelf, 773. 5 860. 7; Ktihner-Gerth, 597 m. this idea the Lxx use oH <kXk' ri (Gen. 28"), t{ ( = oOx) aXXo rt (Mai. ri (2 Cor. i"), 215), oiix si ]xi] (Neh. 2^); N. T. writers use oOx, SXkoq (Rom. ii'^ Eph. 4'), but neither (i Cor. iqI'), t^? ( = o^'^-) e^ oOx. el
this expression.
clause he
[jltq
iW
\i.r]
['-'^l
ad
loc.) 8 is
referred to zha^^iXio^ in
is
taken as equivalent
yap
Iffxtv is
(2XXo,
and the
el
\i.ri
clause
is
taken as adversative.
This view
*
now
still
The
relative o
ei /xij
might
eiiayye'^io'',
the expression
ovK aXAo
being
and against this the objection of Sief. (cf. also Wies.) that in that case on must have been But inserted, as in 2 Cor. 12", or eiaiv omitted, is hardly valid in view of Mk. 6' Rom. 14'^
there would
still
remain the
first
The
same as")
is,
of course,
not the same as (numerical) exception to a negative statement ("no other except," "none For this latter the Lxx use ovk dMos irKrjv (Exod. 8"> Isa. 45"* beside," or "not except"). Bel. 41); ov< 6Tt ir\riv (Deut. 4"), e/cro? aAA.os ovk dsa. 26"). ovic Trapef (Isa. 45"''), ovk el fxr)
(Neh. 2").
(or ovSei?,
/a^jSet's)
el
fj-ri
(Mt 11"
17'
21"
Rom.
e7epo<;
7' I3''
and once dAA.05 ovk el /jltj (Jn. 6"). These last two expressions most one before us in v.', Jn. 62-. being the only exact verbal parallel (and not even this in order of words) found in either Lxx or N. T. But in both these passages what is expressed is not qualitative non-distinction, but exception (rather loosely attached) They furnish no argument, therefore, for taking the to a preceding negative statement. present passage in the sense "not other than," but in so far as they weigh at all favour taking 1 /xij as introducing an exceptive clause, qualifying the preceding relatively complete statement, rather than as coalescing with the preceding <xA.Ao to express a single idea, "not other
ovk
el
ixr)
than," "equivalent to saying." The use of ou5ets dWo? in Jn. 15'' Acts 4". meaning "no one else," and of ovSev a\Ko in Gal. s" in the sense "nothing else" creates some probability that if Paul had meant here "nothing else than" he would have written ovSev aWo instead of
OVK akko.
"nothing
else
But the fact that nowhere in Lxx or N. T. is ovSev akko used than" forbids laying stress on this argument.
in a phrase
meaning
24
extended discussion.
GALATIANS
Each element of it is in itself impossible: 8 can not refer to euayTsXtov alone in the sense of the (true) gospel, since this would involve an abrupt dropping from the mind of the emphatic ele-
ment
(t:6)
in the antecedent clause, and the mental substitution of a word having practically the opposite force; 6 o6x eaxtv might possibly
mean
"for
is
it is
"there
e! '^ri be merely adversative in force (see on i^^). Ram., as stated above, prefers the first of these views, but as his second choice translates "another gospel, which is not different (from
mine), except in so far as certain persons pervert the gospel of Christ." iTspov euayy^Atov he refers to the teaching of the Twelve, which Paul
affirms to be not really different gospel, which
is
from
his
of this
Paul and the Twelve, he supposes to be the judaisers. Aside from the question whether Paul could by this language convey so complex an idea, and whether Paul really regarded
to
his gospel as quite so closely identical with that of the
common
Twelve as
it
this
is
whether
does justice
to the relative meanings of 'ixepoq and ^Xkoq, and to this question it seems necessary to return a negative answer, and consequently to reject Ram.'s interpretation of the passage. See detached note on
p. 420.
The balance
of evidence therefore
in the sense
el ^tq
as above,
"which
is
is
Ram,, to and akXoq, but to suppose that the two terms are entirely synonymous, the change being simply for variety of expression. In the latter case both words might consistently with Greek usage in general mean either "another" (second) numerically distinct, or "different." But the interpretation advocated above is more probable than either of these latter. In any case el retains its exceptive force, meaning here "except (in the sense that)."
alternative
not, with
The only
[jltj
Ttv<;
ela-iv 01
rapdaaovre^
vjjlol'^
some who are troubhng you and desire to pervert the gospel of the Christ." This is the first mention of those who were preaching the other gospel
among
the Galatians.
still
The present
in the
in Galatia,
and that
intended to
The verb rapdaa-a), prop, "to agitate physically" (Jn. 5'), much more frequently in N. T. means "to disturb mentally," with
I,
7-8
2^
25
Jn. 14* Acts 152*).
Con-
an indefinite word
like Tivi^ or a
article, see
W. XVIII
424, Bl. 412 W. implies (732), Rad. p. 93, Gild. Syn. p. 283, Rob. p. 277. that TLvh is here subject and ol rap. pred. but the attributive
3;
XX 4
(WM.
BMr
construction
is
more probable;
cf.
chaps.
220 321.
Observe
in
The
troubling
is
a present fact.
The
perversion
is
as
N. T. Acts
2"-^,
here,
and
Jas. 4= only)
means
is
(i)
"to
turn," "to transfer," (2) "to change from one thing into another or
not inthe
yet
when
and good,
xg\.<zxoq,
to change
it is
naturally thought of as
being to pervert
On
the meaning of
on The
Titles
and
Note that we should here transPredicates of Jesus, III, pp. 395 _ff. late "the gospel of the Christ," x?^'^'^^^ with the article being here, as
usually,
and always
name but a
de-
one
aWa
KaX eav
rffjueU
7)
Trap' 6 evTjyyeXLadfieOa
avdOefia earco.
"But even
you a gospel not in accordance with that which we preached to you, let him be accursed." This strong language shows how serious Paul considered the differences between his gospel and that which
we
jis-is.
The
antithesis expressed
by aWd is probably between the disposition, which he suspects some of his readers may feel, to regard the gospel of Paul and that of the judaisers as, after all, not so very different, and his
own
The
is
clause, so far as
dyyeXo^ ef ovpavov
is
concerned,
26
avdOefia earo}, and the
GALATIANS
fcal is intensive,
It
is,
the
clause
is
causally conditional.
BMT
On
Cy^^^
Euthal.
al.
read euaYyeXfarjTat;
BDFGHL
is
Bas. read
B'jayyekl'C,i]'zai;
and
-l^YjTat;
KP
read
-t;eTac.
between -arixat. and -'(jirau Intrinsically it is a little more probable that Paul would write -^tixat, implying a continuous propagandism, rather than -c-q-zoci, which might suggest a single occasion of preachindecisive as
ing, contrary to the apostle's doctrine.
than either of the other forms, accounting for all the readings, each of the others arising from -i;iQTac by the change of a single letter. It is also more probable that scribes would
favours
-'(,-qxoct.
as
more
easily
anathema a harsher form by changing -t^rjTai to it by the reverse change. Ln. (mg.)
Ln.
(txt.)
Tdf.
WH.
S^AD-'KLP
after eiiaYyeX.;
al. pier,
6[xlv
Cyr^' read u^xaq after euayYeX. The reading b^iaq may be set aside as weakly attested and probably due to the influence of b'^aq in v. , yet it bears a certain testimony to the presence of a pronoun at this point.
The
witnesses to
Citi-Tv
u^jlIv
after
it
furnish
strong testimony to
its
Dalman, Words
of Jesus, pp.
is
102 f.).
"it'3,
The
active occurs
first
found
found
N. T.
In the
Lxx
it is
a translation of
it is
In N. T.
passive.
The middle
is
with or without a dative of indirect object (Lk. 4" 80, or by a dative (Rom. I") or accusative (Acts S^") of the person to whom the message is delivered without an accusative of content, or is used absolutely
(i
Cor.
ji').
Except
in Lk. i>'
and
When
to the proclamation
N. T. sense of the word. See note on euayyiXiov, Paul uses the word in the middle only, both with and without
I,
27
Rom.
II' Gal.
and
this verse
gospel.
and always, except in i Thes. 3 Rom. and the next, with reference to the preaching of his By the addition of xap' 0, etc., here and in v. , the word is given
18.
9.
n,
16. 23
413)^
a more general reference than to Paul's gospel in particular, yet doubtpreaching of the Christian gospel, not to the
announcement
x,T)puaatv,
of
good tidings
euo!.jyiXio\>
in general.
It is equivalent to s^af'fiXioy
is
implied in exepov
stantially the
It
On
same idea
Cor. 3"
Cor.
ii.
has been
much
Trap'
8 signifies
"contrary
is
to," or "besides."
very narrow.
are as follows:
xapd in the
New
Testament
limit of:
Beyond, passing a certain limit, (a) Beyond the measure or (i) in excess of (Rom. 12' 2 Cor. 8' Heb. 11" also Heb. 2^ ); (ii) in greater degree than (Luke 132. < Rom. i 14* Heb. i'); (iii) in transgression of, contrary to (Acts 18'' Rom. i^' 418 ii* 16"); (b) after com1.
9"
except
2.
(i
Aside from, except, lacking, used with a numeral, 2 Cor. 11", and Greek writers with other expressions suggesting number or quantity. 3. Because of (i Cor. 12^^-^^). The use in the present passage evidently falls neither under 2 nor 3; nor under i (a) (i) or (ii) nor, because of the absence of a comparative
in
;
(c).
The meaning
it
Lxx
The
nearest approach to
that which
is illus-
Cor. 3"; but this sense apparently occurs only after SXkoq,
It
which
writers
is
remains therefore to
common in classical
N. T., "contrary to," i, (a) (iii) above. It should be observed, however, that the fundamental meaning of xapd: is "by the side of," then "beyond," and that it acquires the meaning "contrary
and
to" from the conception of that which goes beyond (and so transgresses) the limits of the object. This fundamental idea seems usually at least
to linger in the word, suggesting not so
denial, or
much
direct contradiction or
on the other side merely addition, as exceeding the limits and so non-accordance with it. of a thing, e. g., a law or teaching This meaning suggested by the original sense of the Cf. Rob., p. 616. preposition and by its usage is entirely appropriate to the present The evidence of the letter as a whole indicates that the passage. teachings of the judaisers, which Paul evidently has in mind here, were neither, on the one side, additions to his own teaching in the same
28
spirit as his, nor,
his,
GALATIANS
on the other
side, direct contradictions
and denials
of
but additions which were actually subversive in effect. The translation "other than" (RV., cf. Weizsacker) is not quite accurate, because
it
suggests any variation whatever from Paul's message. "Contrary to" (RV. mg.) slightly exaggerates this idea of contrariety, suggesting
direct
contradiction. "Not in accordance with" or "at variance with" seems to come nearest to expressing the idea of the Greek. The words dcvdcOe'tJia and dvdOTQ[j,a were originally simply variant spell-
ings of the
same word.
et
The
al.,
latter
word meant
in
Homer "an
orna-
"votive offering" set up in a temple. perhaps in fact the older sense. In this
In
is
used to translate
D->n,
a thing devoted to
God
Lxx and
"a thing
Apocr.
and
dcvdOsixa
"a votive
accursed, devoted to destruction" (Lev. 27=8 Deut. 13" i>8i), etc., or "a curse" (Deut. iji^um 2o''')- But variant readings appear in
Deut.
72' his
Jud. i6'
i^'i
Mac.
3'^
In N. T.
dvd075[Aa,
found only in
SADX
231*
in
Rom.
accursed"; in Acts
"a
16" means "a thing (or rather a person) vow taken with an oath, a meanfirst
or second century
Deissmann in ZntW. II 342), and hence doubtless a current use of the term in Common Greek, as it is also in modern Grk. Cf. M. and M. Voc. s. v. The former of these two meanings differs from
the
common Lxx
it
e.
denotes not so
g.,
much
thing devoted to
God
to be destroyed (see,
See esp.
Rom.
9'.
How
condemnation
of
God
would express
literal sense
Taken
in their
the words dvdOsjjia eaxd) (on the use of the imper. see Rob.
may
Precisely
is difficult
mind
to determine, because
impossible to
know
precisely
how
feeling entered into the words. For the evidence that dvdOe[xa does not here or in N. T. generally refer to excommunication, as some older interpreters maintained, see Wieseler's extended note on this passage.
9.
ft)?
TTpoeipriKafiev, kol
apn
ttoXlv Xeyw,
"As we
said before
so
now
may mean
as,
e, g.,
in
I,
8-9
29
2 Cor. 73
Heb.
4^,
spoken
of," as in
Mk.
Rom.
g^^ 2
Cor. 132.
The two
ideas
But the
which
is
ferred to in TvpoeiprjKay^ev^
refers to
Trpo-
terance, however,
not that of
vious occasion, as
e. ^.,
Thes.
2^^ 3I'
Cor. ii^f-
23
iq^ 1121,
schrijt-
stellerische
could in
2
itself
143 #), and Trpoeipi^Kafiev refer to something just said in the letter (see
the use of dprt here implying difference of
Cor.
7').
But
he
is
Since
we
know
no previous
made by Paul
(or
by Paul and
2
his
com-
i^^fon and other passages cited above be said to be decisive) when he was in Galatia. On which of the two occasions on which he had probably already visited the Galatians (4^^) this warning was given, depends somewhat on the question of the chronology of these visits, itself turning in large part on the location of
Cor.
the churches.
it
The very
on his second missionary journey, there have been occasion for such a warning on his first visit to them. If, on the other hand, the churches were in southern Galatia, and hence founded on the first missionary journey, it is less probable that he had occasion at that time to utter so pointed a warning, and more likely that he refers
might
to something said
on the occasion
-jcpoetpToxatAev
The
perfect tense of
marks
simply a
past fact,
but as one of which the result remains, doubtless in that they remember (or may be assumed to remember) the utterance
30
of the saying.
GALATIANS
BMT
74, 85.
The
This reference to the existing result of the saying can not be expressed in English except by an interjected
to their
memory
of the utterance.
clause, "as we told you and you remember," and inasmuch as the use of the English perfect in such a connection suggests a recent action in this case most naturally an utterance just made in the preceding
sentence the best translation is the simple past, which though it leaves unexpressed a part of the meaning of the Greek, has at least the advantage of not expressing anything not conveyed by the Greek. BMT 82. The strict force of v.ai before apxt is doubtless adverbial, "also," but EngUsh idiom in such a case prefers the simple "so." Cf. Jn. 6" 13"
I
Cor. 15".
v.oci
The
I
fuller
and more
definitely
comparative expression
cited
ouTwq
occurs
strictly present
schatz,
M.
Voc.
s. v.), is
by Nageli, Worl-
p. 78,
as a
word
classical exx. in L.
&
S.
et Ti? v/Aa?
''
evayyeXi^eraL
Trap'*
any one is preaching to you a gospel not in accordance with that which ye received, let him be accursed." This sentence differs from that of v.^ in two respects which affect the thought: (i) the element of concession and improbability disappears in the omission of Vf^l^ ^ dyyeko^ ej ovpavov; (2) the form of the
If
is
displaced
by that
which expresses simple present supposition, and which is often used when the condition is known to be actually fulfilled. The
result
is
home
and
and
since
to Paul
condition et Ti?
TrapeXd/Sere
in Galatia.
yap avOpdnrov^; Treido) t) top Oeov; "For am I now seeking the favour of men, or of God ? " dpri, now, i. e., in these The apostle evidently refers to a charge that on utterances.
10. a/OTt
previous occasions or in other utterances he had shaped his words so as to win the favour of men. A similar charge was
made by
" to
his
opponents at Corinth,
present tense,
of
Cor. lo^
ireiOco
4^^
means
win
Acts
1220.
The
of the
Mac.
I,
9-10
31
the tense, has the meaning, " to seek the favour of."
11;
BMT
GMT
The
Preusch.
25.
indeed, as Win. Th.
force of y<^P
et al.
is difficult
to determine.
If,
some maintain, from its etymological sense as compounded of -^i and The apostle would in that (2pa), this meaning would be most suitable. case draw from his preceding sentence the inference, expressed in a
rhetorical question, that he
is
not pleasing
men
(as
Or
if it
by Hoogeveen
et al.
(see
had the asseverative force attributed Misener, The Meaning of V&q, Baltimore,
would also yield a suitable meaning: "Surely I am not now pleasing men, am I?" But most of the N. T. passages cited by Th.
1904), this
et al.
as in
some sense
causal,
is difficult
and though there remain a very few which it on the assumption of an asseverative or
(see
illative force,
i*),
yet
all
the
uses of Y<^P
op.
cit.),
3.re
and the
phrases,
we do not seem
I say, for
to be justified in assuming
it
In that case
must be
etc.
either confirmatory
or,
"and
mean what
this I
am
now?"
sive, justifying
am I now?" etc. Of these two more probable, since the preceding expression is already sufficiently strong and would naturally call for justification rather than confirmation. To this as to any form of the view that makes f&g causal, it is indeed an objection that the clause introduced by Y<ip ought naturally to be either a positive assertion, or a question the answer to which is to the opponent in argument so evident and unquestionable that it has the value of a proved assertion. See, e. g., Jn. 7" Acts 8" 1935 i Cor. 11", But this latter is precisely what this question does not furnish. To those to whom Paul is addressing himself it is by no means self-evident and unquestionable that he is concerned to win the favour of God and not of men. But dcpxt with its backward reference to the strong language of the preceding sentences
"and
explanations the second
the
suggests that this language itself
apostle
is
is
am
not
now
seeking to please
fact, as
if
It is as
y&p one
am
no
flatterer," the
not impossible to
32
GALATIANS
one writing under strong emotion, and
the most probable explanation of both
this interpretation furnishes
dcpTi
and
I
-{&?.
7j
^7}T0) av6paiiroL<^
apeaKeiv;
"Or am
little
seeking to please
men?"
more
distinctly the
^tjtco
more
ij/JLrjv.
defi-
en
avOpaaiTOL^ TJpecTKOv,
^ptarov
8ov\o<; ovk
av
"If
were
still
(BMT
is
is
a servant of Christ.
The
not resultative.
This
meaning suggest
effort,
and there
and the like, which by their is no occasion to regard the That which the apostle says
of Christ
is,
not a being
The
expres-
moreover comparative rather than absolute, signifying not the intention under any circumstances or in any degree to please men, but to please men in preference to God, as is implied in the preceding av6p(t)7rov(;
. .
.
rj
no contradiction,
Cor.
lo^^.
therefore,
between
/jlt)
this assertion
and
that of
jravra iraaiv
apea-fcco,
^tjtcov to e/xavrov
(Tv/jL(j)opov
aXXa
(TcoOcocrLV.
some
of the
to which it expresses the course which the apostle would voluntarily have pursued if he had been seeking to win the approval of men, "I would not have entered the service of Christ but would have remained a Pharisee," would almost of necessity have been expressed by ovk av
iyevdfjLTjv " I
On Xpccrrov without
in v.
'',
the
article, as
a proper name,
on rod xpiarov
is
and detached
The
rela-
whole sentence
el ere
Tj/jLrjv
doubtless, though
its
is
yap
of
TR. having no
The
appeal, however,
is
Christ
this his
at this
but to
am
as
if
now a men-pleaser, for I myself recognise that that would make me no longer a servant of Christ." The connection of this verse with v.^ is so obviously close, and w. "'^2 so clearly enter upon a new phase of the letter, that it is difficult to see how WH. could have made the paragraph begin at v.^". RV. is obviously right in beginning
it
at V. ".
It has
preceding dtp^axetv
is
separately expressed in
The
objection, however,
is
of little
force.
be pleasing to" or
seek to please."
(as nearly as it
may
be separately
ipiaxeiy, or
may
be
left to
be conveyed by the
"now
as heretofore,"
'^
is
860,
"one or two
dfxapTwXbq
(3) logical
opposition
(t{ etc
x&yii
ox;
judged as a sinner?" Rom. 3O. The second and third uses, of course, spring from the first, and occasional
I nevertheless
"why am
is
asso-
Heb. 11*. In the present passage exi might be (a) purely temporal, the comparison being with his pre-Christian life when he was not a servant of Christ; (b) purely temporal, the comparison being with a previous period of his Christian life when he was seeking to please men and, consequently, was not a servant of Christ; (c) purely temporal, the comparison being with a previous period of his Christian life, when, as alleged by his opponents, he was seeking to please men; or (d) temporal and adversative, The ixt, meaning "still, despite all that I have passed through." interpretation (b) is excluded by the practical impossibility that Paul could characterise any part of his Christian life as one in which he
it.
and modifies
See,
e. g.,
34
was not a servant
GALATIANS
of Christ.
The
is
rendered
improbable by the fact that his recent experiences were not such as men-pleasing; to be specially calculated to eradicate the tendency to
rather,
anything, there was in them a temptation to seek to please temptation to which his opponents alleged he had yielded. men, a The interpretation (c) probably is correct to this extent, that the against him apostle has in mind the charges that have been made recent conduct as a Christian apostle, and means to say his
if
respecting
that whatever
now
at least
it
may have been alleged respecting that past conduct, cannot be charged that he is still seeking to please men.
Yet it is doubtful whether the reference is solely to an alleged pleasing with anything actual of men, and in so far as ext implies a comparison For though in the past, it must be with the days of his Phariseeism.
Paul was perhaps
(Mt.
6'
less affected
by the
men
having more desire for righteousness and divine yet he approval, than most of his fellow Pharisees (Gal. i^^ Phil. 3O, would doubtless not hesitate to characterise that period of his life as one of men-pleasing as compared with his Christian life. The thought pleasing men, as was the case in is therefore probably: "If I were still days of my Phariseeism, and as my opponents allege has been
"
23'f-)>
the
recently the case, I should not be a servant of Christ." AoOXoq, properly "a slave, a bondservant," is frequently used
by
N. T.
and that
of believers in general
The fundamental
idea of the
word
is
subjection,
more or
less
constantly the
by a master and
service to him.
The SouXoq
his propsubject to his master (xuptoq, Bsax6TY]q), belongs to him as As applied to the Christian and deerty, and renders him service. it all three scribing his relation to Christ or God the word carries with different cases, the of these ideas, with varying degrees of emphasis in
fundamental idea of subjection, obedience, on the whole predominatAt the same time the conception of the slave as one who serves ing. the unintelligently and obeys from fear, is definitely excluded from writers; of the SouXoq XptaToO as held by Paul and other N. T. idea
SouXefa in this sense
41-^
is
affirmed in
its
place (Gal.
of
Rom.
Eph.
e^-*).
The statement
Cremer
normal correctly represents the thought of N. T. in general: ''The moral relation of man to God is that of a lo'Skoq toO eeoO, whose own
It is evidently such a full free is bound to God." the service of Christ that Paul has in mind here in the use of but free with and term BoOXo? Xpiaroj. The effort to please men conflicts
will
though perfectly
Cf.
Deissmann,
New
Light
35
II.
I.
from God
(i^^-
^'^).
Beginning with
self
these
of
verses,
to
the refutation
judaising teachers,
and
and
and
first of all,
up
independence of
human
by
authority or commission,
and
of Jesus Christ.
^^For
I declare
to
by
me
is not
according
man;
but
it
^"^for
neither did
to
receive
it
from
came
me
through revelation of
yap
i
v/jlip,
aSe\(f>Oi, "
For
ren."
The verb
Cf.
yvwpl^o) suggests a
assertion.
Thes.
4^^,
Rom. i^^ 11-^ i Cor. 10^ 12^ 2 Cor. and M. and M. Voc. on yvcopL^co and jcvcoaKO).
is
The
is
directed.
This
what follows remains the same whether Only in the latter case the apostle (as in
his leading proposition to
it,
a preceding
statement as a justification of
itself
and
who
are
36
leading
GALATIANS
them
astray.
the beginning of a
also
Rom.
i^^- ^^
See a somewhat similar use of ^dp at new division of the argument in Rom. i^^; cf. The word "brethren," ahe\(^oi, doubtless
Christians.
v.
^.
Fdp
after yvfopf^w
is
the reading of fc<aBD*FG 33 d f g Vg. Dam. ^*XD^'>^ KLP, the major portion of the
Ori'**ytSip is
slight. Both readings must be very ancient, yd:? is the reading of the distinctively Western But which in authorities, and Zi apparently of the Alexandrian text. this case diverged from the original can not be decided by genealogical evidence. The group BDFG supporting ycip, and that supporting li, viz., SAP al., each support readings well attested by internal
The preponderance
very
evidence.
in this case
The
it,
addition of
2>2)
and throws the balance of evidence slightly in favour of yip. Internal evidence gives no decided ground of preference for either against the other, and the question must apparently be left about as it is by \VH., ya? in the text as a little more probably right, Zi on the margin as almost equally well attested. If Zi
somewhat strengthens
is
it
is
s.
v.
7;
W.
of the
of V.
superhuman authority
the Jews
it
10.
Among
members of a given family or tribe (Lev. 25" Num. all members of the nation (Lev. 19" Deut. i' 2 Rom. 9'). Papyri of the second century B. c. show the same religious community were called dSe>.cpo(. Voc. s. V. The habit of the Christians to call one
was customary to recognise as brethren all the i6''), and indeed Mac. i^ Acts 7 that members of See M. and M.
another brethren
may have
In the
regarded.
Jews, those
Thus while the brethren mentioned in v.* were presumably who are here addressed as brethren were Gentiles. Cf.
According to the gospels Jesus had taught that they are will, and they brethren to one another who unite in recognising Jesus himself as Master. Mk. 3"-" Mt. 23 . In Paul the emphasis of the term is upon the fraternal, affectionate,
also Acts 15".
his brethren
who do God's
mutually regardful attitude of Christians to one another (i Cor. 5" 6'- gii-is 1-58 2 Cor. i 2" Rom. i4i' " ^0, though the suggestion of a common relationship to Christ and God is not wholly lacking (see Rom.
I,
II
37
of ajffection
and the use of it constitutes an appeal to all those relations and fellowship which Christians sustain to one another by virtue of their common faith, and membership in one body (i Cor. isi*^-)On later Christian usage, see Harnack, Mission and Expansion
816,
17.
29)^
of Christianity,'^ I 405 /.
TO evajyeXiOV rb evayyektadh vtt' ifiov on ovk earcv Kara dvOpcoTTov " that the gospel that was preached by me is not ac-
cording to man."
is,
by a species of attraction common both in classical writers and N. T. (Jelf 898. 2; W. LXVI 5 a) introduced as the object of yvcopL^Q). On the meaning of evayyeXtov, see detached On the use of the note, p. 422, and on evayyeKiadev see on v.^
verb with an accusative of content, or in the passive with a
subject denoting the gospel or
i6i I Cor. 151 2 Cor.
its
^^-^^
Lk.
d>^
ii^
The
is
mind
at this
to preach, or
is
moment the gospel not as that which he is wont now preaching, but as that which was preached
is
by him
to the Galatians.
That the gospel preached by him is by the use of A converse use of aorist and present in 2^, dveSefM-qv avrok to evayyeXcov
by Greek
down
but in N. T. by Paul only, is of very general significance, the noun being neither on the one hand generic (which
Wetst. on
3^),
Rom.
would require xbv avGpwxov) nor individually indefinite, "a man," but merely qualitative. The preposition signifies "according to," "agreeably to," "according to the will or thought of," or "after the manner
it
/.a-ca Ge6v,
Rom. 8"
Cor.
7'- ",
and xara Xptaxbv 'IifjaoOv, Rom. 15^), and the whole phrase means "human" or "humanly," "from a human point of view," "according to human will or thought": Rom. 3* i Cor. 3' 9*
x6ptov, 2 Cor. 11',
15'* Gal. 315.
bilities:
Respecting
its
(a)
i.
As
e.,
in
Cor. g^
it
may
of
man,"
of
human
of a message in s'jayysXiov
it may mean "of human origin"; (c) it may convey simply the general idea "human" without more exact disThere no decisive ground of choice among these, but crimination.
i.-.
3^
the last seems
GALATIANS
more consistent both mth the usage of the phrase and with the context; notice that v. i^ covers both source and method of origin, and does not specifically mention authority. The suggestion of Bous. (SNT.) that it means "self-originated," "eigene Phantasie," is not sustained by usage, and is excluded by the next two clauses, oiSI eStSdxOigv, in which it is in effect defined, .
. .
12. ovSe
jap
iyco
it
from man." This is the first step of the proof of the preceding general statement that his gospel is not a human message. Like the proposition itself it is negative,
denying
human
source.
may
(i)
serve
fact additional to the one already stated and an evidence for it, as is the case especially in arguments from analogy (see Lk. 20^^
to introduce a statement of
what
is
at the
same time a
Acts 412 Rom. 8^), or (2) ouSe may throw its force upon a term of the sentence, suggesting a comparison of the case mentioned with some other case previously mentioned or
Jn.
522
single
On this latter view the comparison would doubtless be with the Twelve, who, it is taken for granted, received the
in mind.
This comparison itself, howbe of either one of two kinds: (a) It may be comparison simply and, so to speak, on equal terms, 'Tor neither
ever,
may
did I any more than they receive it, etc." (Cf. Jn. f, as interpreted in AV., "for neither did his brethren beheve on him." See also a similar use of OL'Se without yap in Mk. ii26; or (b) it may be ascensive comparison: "For not even I, of whom, not
being of the Twelve, it might have been supposed that I must have received the gospel from men, received it thus" (cf. Gal. 613). Of these three views the first (maintained by Sief.) is most in accord with N. T. usage of ovSe yap (see exx. above), but is objectionable because the statement here made can not
thought of as a co-ordinate addition to the preceding, of iyd), emphatic by the mere fact of its insertion, almost requires that ovBe shall be interpreted as throwing its force upon it. The second view, 2(a), is more
easily be
2(b); the implication of the latter that his receiving his gospel otherwise than from man is in a
39
sense an extreme case seems foreign to the state of
apostle as
is it
mind
of the
The
no ground
else as
we
the Twelve.
The verb
Tapalaii^avoi bears in N. T.
two meanings:
(2)
(i)
"To
take to
"To
receive something
all
transmitted to one."
in Paul.
I
The
1.3
latter
is
the uniform or
Cor. ii 15
Gal.
i^*
4} 2 Thes. 3,
and
is
The
meaning is one which is derived from this. Thus both Greek writers and in N. T. it is used after verbs of learning, hearing,
d(x6.
With Mk.
5'^ cf.
cf.
Lk. iji^
cially
When
used after a verb which implies transmission, espeof xapa, xapd before the
noun apparently acquires marking its object as source, but at the same time as transmitter from a more ultimate source. Such seems to be the force of the preposition in i Thes. 2^3 41 2 Thes. 3';
a
compound
by
it is
second time
may
which a change to
ing
<k%6
mak-
them
I
also transmitters.
on
will
Winer (WM. p. 463/. n.) and Mey. means "directly from." On the other hand,
is
Ltft.'s
prominent xapd
Not only
xapd often used of ultimate source, with no suggestion of transmission, but dx6 is used, in i Cor. 11" at least, when the idea of
is
transmission
is
40
xapd
is
GALATIANS
suggested by the verb or context, and the object
used before a transmitting source, the idea of transmission is is the mediate source.
To this rule Phil. 4'* is, as remarked above, probably no exception. The force of xapd: accordingly in the present phrase luapa ivGpcixou, joined
with xapdXa^ov, which distinctly suggests receiving by transmission, is probably "along from," and taken with ouSi the phrase denies that the gospel which Paul preached was received by him from men as the
intermediate source.
of
it,
man
hiunan source with a divine mediate source is excluded by its own absurdity. In effect, therefore, xapd in the present phrase covers the ground more specifically covered in v.^ by dxd and Std:. 'Avepwxou is probably to be taken as in 8t' dvOpwxou in v. in the most
^
Cf.
hence to be translated "from man," rather than "from a man." on v. S and see Jn. s^*-
To
the denial of
man
as the source
adds as a correlative statement a denial of instruction as the This was, of course, precisely it.
of the Christians
and
even of the Christian tea.chers of that day had received the It had been communicated to them by other men. gospel. Cf. the case of Apollos, Acts iS^^. 26^ of Timothy, 2 Tim. 3", and
of apostles
word "teach" in reference to the work and preachers in general Acts 4^^ 5^8 20^0 i Cor. 4^^ The apostle characterises his as an exceptional Col. 1 2^, etc. As a pupil of the Pharisees he had been taught somecase. thing very different from the gospel, but he had had no
the frequent use of the
:
who
OuS^ before eStS. is read by SAD*FGP 31, 104, 326, 436, 442 Boh. Eus. Chr. Euthal. Cyr. Thdrt. Dam.; ouxe by BD-'KL Oec. al. Since the latter evidence proves that outs is not simply an idiosyncrasy of B., and the Western authorities are almost unanimously on
the side of 06SI, the probability
is
that
ouU
is
a Western digression
produced either by accidental assimilation to the preceding ouB^ or by correction of the unusual combination oCxe. Cf. WM. pp. 617/. The oOxe before eStS. can not be regarded as strictly correlative to ouU
from the
original reading
oO're,
om
I,
12
41
at the beginning of the verse, since oOSI and oSxs are not correlative
conjunctions
translation
(WM.
its
nor"
of the English
by
Nor would
if
ouBe be
the first looking forward to the second and the second correlation back to the first but successive negation, each oOSi looking backward and adding a negation to one already in mind. With the reading oSxe,
is
first,
though the
first
to the pre-
aWa Sl
gested
ctTTO/caXv-yjrect)^
'Irjaov'KpLaTOv.
"but
it
came
to
is
me
A
is
verb such as
sug-
by irapiXajBov and
Si'
ehthd'xOrjv
of necessity to be sup-
being denied and the latter affirmed, as the method by which the apostle obtained his gospel. On the meaning of a7ro/caXuT|rt9, see detached note on'ATro/caXuTrrwand
the
first
'ATTOKaXvij/LS, p.
433
It is
is
here using
the term in
its
revealed
by
whom
the disclosure
is
through his
ineffectual
its
him which, being made to men at large, as, e. g., life and death, might be perceived by some and fall upon others, but of a personal experience, divine in
ov8e
.
origin
{cf.
irapa avOpwirov)
personal to himself
and
effectual.
It has
'Itjo-ov
^piarov
is
is
an
the revealed
or the revealer.
to him,
and
in such
way
is
the sub-
Christ
is
the revealer,
doubtless the
revealed.
view
(i)
wont
to speak of
God
and
of Christ as the
42
the former usage
i'
i
GALATIANS
Cor.
2* 2
Cor.
Thes.
i^
Gal
i^^; (2)
very context
same
(v.^^) where Paul, apparently speaking of the which he here refers, uses the phrase airoKokvy^ai rbv vlov avTov iv ifioi, in which Jesus is unambiguously rep-
fact to
It
may
second interpretation
(i)
and iSLBdxOrjv, and revelation as the method over against man as the source and instruction as the method;
affirming Christ as the source
(2)
from the Jewish- Christian conception of the gospel, requires as its source a revelation of larger and more definite content than
is
implied
when
the genitive
is
taken as objective.
But
these
decisive.
Paul
is
and the
(or in
first
view as truly
self-evident
substantially, since
it is
that
if
him
him)
God was
the
As to whether a revelation of which Christ was the content was adequate to be the source of his gospel, there is
revealer.
much
all
by the
him
Thus
it
and
as
an inference
from
it
(Rom.
i*);
previous attitude towards the law might, probably did, lead him
to recognise the futility of righteousness
by
preparing the
way
accepted
may have
led
circumcision.
cisely this
While it can not perhaps be proved that prewas the order of Paul's thought, his various references to his experience find their most natural explanation in this view, that the new conception of Jesus which Paul gained by the revelation of Christ in him furnished the premise from
which the essential elements
Phil. 3^-9 Gal. 2'9
of his gospel
30^
were derived.
See
Rom. f^
329.
and
where
I,
13
43
uted to him,
the Gentiles.
occurs.
viz.,
It seems, therefore,
more probable that the genitive and that the apostle refers to a
it
See further on v. ^^
indefinite,
maybe either
"a
In the former case the reference is to a single specific though unidentified experience. In the latter case the phrase simply describes the method by which the gospel
revelation" or qualitative, "revelation."
of ex-
The
by which
mascus experience only {cf. vv. ! '0 Christ was made known to him.
of specific reference
"by
revelation"
is
"by a
revelation"
2.
human
authority
life
(vv.'^^'^^)
drawn
of his
life
{i^^-2^^).
before
his
conversion
To
some
of
them at
life
least already
known
case
is
The evidence
my manner
of
life
and ravaged it. ^^And I was advancing in the religion of the Jews beyond many who were of equal age with me in my nation, being more exceedingly zealous than they of the traditions of my
fathers.
13. 'H/coucrare
BalafjLU),
70-/3
of
my
manner
of life formerly in
44
GALATIANS
With
or
this sentence
Paul introduces
own
had not
force of
man
by
instruction.
if
The
not through,
The argument
is
cumulative in character.
From
whom
the Galatians
life
had heard
Christian
himself.
was from
an interesting way
esp. chap. 26.
his probable
own
and
On
the tense
of rjKovcraTe^ see
'AvaarpocpTQ,
BMT 46,
meaning
in
52.
classical
c.
writers
"return,"
etc.,
first
ap-
in the sense
"manner
of
life,"
which sense it also has in the very few found in the Apocr.: Tob. 4" 2 Mac. 3" (it is not found in the Lxx, canonical books, and though it stands in the Roman edition at 2 Mac. 5* it is without the support of either of the
"conduct" (Polyb.
4. 821),
instances in which
it is
viz.
412
AV.); this
is
Heb.
2"
Pet. 2^
3ii)cf.
On
(cited
ttj? Tpofa? aXwaiq ad loc), Plato, Legg. Ill 685 D, xb Seixepov, "the capture of Troy the second time"; Soph, 0. T. 1043, Tou Tupdvvou TT^qBe Ytji; Tz^'KoLi xoxe, "the long-ago ruler of this land."
by
Sief.
'IouBacc7tJL6<;,
this
and
his
Mac.
2^1 8^
14"
4 Mac. 4". In the passages in Mac. it denotes the Jewish religion in contrast with the Hellenism which the Syrian kings were endeavouring to force upon the Jews; here, of course, the prevalent Judaism with its
rejection of Jesus in contrast with the faith of the followers of Jesus as
the Messiah.
The very
way
is
significant of
the apostle's conception of the relation between his former and his
present faith, indicating that he held the latter, and had presented
to the Galatians, not as a type of Judaism, but as
religion distinct
it
an independent the Jews. Though the word Chiistianity the fact was in existence.
koI
eirop-
I,
13
45
it."
i/xrjv avaaTpo<l)i]v,
This whole clause and the following one not, however, defining
in full the content of that phrase, but setting forth that element
of it which the apostle has in mind as bearing on his argument. That he stood thus in intense hostility to the church is evidence that he was not of those who through the influence of association with Christians, and as a result of instruction (cf. ovtc
iSLSdxOifjv, V.
^2)
The word
Oxep^oXfi
but are used in N. T. only by Paul. The phrase occurs in Rom. 7" 1 Cor. 12" 2 Cor. 1*4", always in the sense "exceeding (ly)," "superior."
The
imperfects,
ISfwxov
and
6x6p0ouv,
representing the
actions
denoted by them as in progress, bring out clearly the continuance of the persecuting activity. The latter verb, meaning in itself not simply
"to injure," but "to destroy," "to ruin," has here, as commonly in the progressive tenses, a conative force. See L. & S. s. v. and 23,
BMT
and compare on xefOo) and v^peaxov in v. i". Btwxto, used from Homer down, meaning "to pursue," frequently carries the associated idea of hostile purpose, and so comes in classical writers to mean "to prosecute" (6 Stcixwv is "the prosecutor," 6 (fedyoiv, "the defendant"), and in the Lxx (Jer. lyi^) and N. T. "to persecute" (Rom. 121* i Cor. 4" xopOeo), used from Homer down as a military term, meaning et freq.). "to destroy," "to ravage" (cities), and from ^schylus, of violence to persons, is not found in the Lxx (canonical books) or Apocr., but occurs in 4 Mac. 4" ii< of persons. In N. T. it is found in this epistle
here and v. " and in Acts 9", always of Paul.
On
(i)
exx'XTjaia
in
p. 417.
tj
Two
facts are
ixyCkriJiix
toO 6eo0:
community
i 2
Cor.
ii;
and
meaning
the charof
acterisation of this
these facts
community as the church of God. The first shows that Paul had not only formed the conception
of
churches as local assemblies and communities of Christians (vv. * "), but had already united these local communities in his thought into
one entity
the church.
by
The second
fact
shows that
this
body already
stood in his mind as the chosen people of God, and indicates how fully, in his thought, the Christian church had succeeded to the position once occupied
this particular place
Paul's employment of this phrase in Israel. was probably due to his sense of the wrongfuli
ness of his persecution as directed against the church of God. Cf. Cor. i5.
Incidentally
it
may be
4^
GALATIANS
which Paul persecuted was a Jewish church, not only in that it was composed of Jews, but probably mainly of those who still observed the
Jewish law, his characterisation of it as the church of God shows how far he was from denying the legitimacy of Jewish Christianity in itself.
Cj. also
I
cvvtjXlreligion
of in
me
my
nation."
As
is
2^2.
Cf. Lk.
presented not as a mere fact but as conThe nature of this advance in Judaism
not defined.
Increasing knowledge Cf. below on vTrdp^wv. which constituted the learning of the Jewish
realisation of the Jewish (in his case
ideal
more perfect
and
official
may
ail
have been
would suggest,
own former
His progress, he adds, not only carried him beyond attainments, but by it he outstripped many of
his contemporaries,
they.
On Iv T(p ylvet ^tou, cf. 2 Cor. 11" Phil. 3*. Though yivoq varies in inclusiveness from family to race in the largest sense, yet the etymological sense
{cf.
Y{vo[i.at,
Yswdto, etc.)
is
word
almost invariably refers to what is determined by origin, not by choice. In Jos. Ani. 13. 297 (io) we find indeed the phrase zh SaBBouxafwv
Y^voq.
Yet
this is
'IouSaca;j,6<;,
describing his
from the general national point of view, without reference to distinction of sects, and in the absence of any qualifying phrase giving to it a narrower sense than usual, it can not be understood to have specific
life
''being
ditions of
my
more exceedingly zealous than they of the trafathers." irepiaaorepco^ is in form and force a
comparative; the unexpressed member of the comparison is doubtless to be supplied from the ttoWois avpTjXcKLiora^. The
i;
14
47
participle vTrdp^cov
so,
is probably causal, though not emphatically "because I was more exceedingly zealous than they." See a
i
Cor. 11^
Cor. 8^^
Ell.
and
Sief.
take
it
place.
But
this interpretation
in a sense impossible
tor
"I was
in
advance
is
of."
his extraordinary
his fellows.
Though
vTrdp^fov
by
make
or
by
instruction possible.
The
it
limitation of
TrarpiKCdv irapaSoaecov
makes
s. v.
probable that
Zealot, a
Bib.),
not to be
of the
taken as a class
adjective
name meaning a
for,"
member
and Diet.
but rather as an
devoted
to."
meaning "zealous
"zealously
were so related to one another that one could be a member of both parties (Phil. 3^ shows that Paul was a Pharisee), there
is
class
no clear or even probable N. T. instance of ^r}\coTrj<s used as a name, and at the same time limited by an objective genitive, and the passages cited by Ltft. do not at all prove that
this party.
Paul belonged to
genitive,
As an
adjective the
is
word does
expressed by the
but
is
In the
present instance
Cf,
I
it
Acts
2i2o
223;
Pet. s'\
which is transand with reference to instruction or information), without indicating the method of transmission, or implying any lapse of time such as is usually associated with
Tzag&hoaiq itself signifies
(in
an act
of transmission or that
mitted
N. T. always
48
both oral and written,
his
i
GALATIANS
the English word tradition.
Thus Paul
2
uses
21^
it
of his
own
instructions,
Cor. ii*
Thes.
own
A p.
xtz-
Mk.
y*-
",
where the things derived by tradition from the fathers and not written in the laws of Moses are contrasted \^dth those which are thus
written,
makes
it
clear that
There
is
is
no
writing to
sense
(cf. Iv T(p
yhsi
(aou
from
of
or
the
Sadducees.
Cf.
in
are described not as coming from the Pharisees, but from the fathers,
and
criticised
Mk.
y'-
(b)
Evidence
of his
now draws
him who from my mother's womb had set me through his grace, ^Ho reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I communicated not with flesh and blood, ^''nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those that were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia and again I returned to Damascus.
^^And when
apart,
it
pleased
me
and who
called
vvv Se
S^/uw oi ^apKraiot
e/c
naTep<av
StaSoxJ)?,
anep
ov/c
avayeypanTai. ev roi? Mwutrew? ro/xots, Kal Sid toOto ravra to 2a55oveKelva. Selp riyeia9ai, vofJUfxa-Ta yeypaix/xiya, to. S' eK
Katoiv -yeVos
cretos
eK^aWei, \^yov
fj.ri
napaSo-
TMV
Trarepiov
T-qpelv:
"And now
p3ople certain usages received from the fathers which are not recorded in the laws of Moses,
and on
this
it is
gard as obligatory those things that are written, but not to observe the things handed by tradition from the fathers."
down
I,
15,
16
KoCkia^
'
49
fiov
15.
"Ore
Be evhoKrjaev
fjLrjrpo^;
rfy? ;^aptT09
avrov ev
ifioi
womb had
set
avrov (16) airoKoXv^lraL top vlov pleased him who from my mother's
called
me
to reveal his
Son
me."
The
in v."^:
"immediately
flesh
and
however, pertaining to his conduct immediately after his conversion to faith in Jesus, he prepares the way in w.^^-"^ by referring to certain antecedents All these he ascribes to God; for that of his conversion.
blood."
For
this statement,
o a(f)Opiaa^
a divine act,
to.
evident from the nature of the acts referred See esp. on the Pauline usage of KaXeco, v. ^, and detached
is
'
^
note on AirofcaXvirra) and KirofcaXv^^i^, p. 433. Of the three antecedents here named the first and second, expressed by
a<^opiaa^ and Kokeaa^ are associated together grammatically, the participles being under one article and joined
it is
by
tcai.
But
and third that are most closely associated in time, a(f)opLcra<; being dated from his birth, while the events denoted by fcaXeaa^ and aTro/caXvyfraL, as the usage of the word KaXeo) shows, are elements or immediate antecedents of the
the second
conversion-experience
the emphasis which in his references to these antecedents of his conversion he throws upon the divine activity and grace (note iv %ajOtTt) and by dating the first of these back to the
By
very beginning of his hfe he incidentally strengthens his argument for his own independent divine commission. He whom
himself from his birth set apart to be a preacher of the gospel to the Gentiles and whom by his grace he called into
God
men
for his
commission
ev ifioi
50
GALATIANS
and
for the apostle or to
an objective manifestation
others (on which
Ell., e. g.,
of Christ in
to
by an appeal
meaning
eV e'yLtoican of itself
mean nothing
But
it
may
else
mind
to
(cf. Rom. i^^ Gal. 2^0), or "in "by means of me to others" (cf. V.24 I Cor. 4^ I Tim. i^^). Which of these two represents the apostle's thought must be decided by other evidence than the mere force of the preposition, (a) The meaning of the verb aTroKaXvTTTco. As pointed out in the detached note on this
any
my
if
Now
it
is
and through Paul, could be thought of what was previously hidden (since Christ had already been preached in the world but had been hidden in his true character from Paul), or specifically as a subjective revelation. The choice of the word airoKaXvirrw^ therefore, is favourable to the former of the two views named above, (b) Such being the case as respects the meaning of
to the world in
him
expressed
or
ifioL,
but
would require
(c)
5ta ifxov
as
rw
Koa-fjLO).
The connection
is
with
ha
evaryyeXL^co/jiaL also
itself affecting
ence in
Paul only.
This revelation
defined
by the passage
makes
it,
an
on that ministry; evayyeXi^cofiac avTOP defines his ministry, to which the divine airoKaXv-^ai^ equally with the a(f)opL(Tat and the KaXeaac^ were preparatory). For this preaching an inward revelation to Paul of the Son of
I,
15,
16
51
God,
others
whom
is
him
to
purpose,
(d) V.^^
Paul by which he
here proving
The
he there affirmed
make
Paul
is
and what
the
(e)
it
mean
is
same and the fact referred to is the same here as Even aside from any similarity of terminology it
that the whole subject of discourse in this paragraph
there,
evident
is
not
how
it;
the refer-
theme
of the
whole passage.
The
God" and
by tov
v.^^ ^j-e
make
it
clear that
vlov avrov
ev
i/jLoi
whom
he speaks.
make it certain that it is the risen Jesus Though grammatically the direct object
avrov
is
undoubtedly
to be
taken as
cb?
(or
On
is
very impor-
what aspect
and
Damascus
and
cf.
TR. with SADKLP al. pier, d Boh. Arm. Eth. Or. Dial. Eus. Epiph. ps-Ath. Chr. Cyr. Euthal. Severian Thdrt. Dam. Ir'"*- Aug. al. The text as above, without 6 Qeoq, insert 6 Oe6c; after euSoxiQasv.
is
attested
by
BFG
1905
Thdrt.
Irit-
g Vg. Syr. (psh. hard.) Eus. Epiph. Chr. Transcriptional probability al.
is
strongly favours the text without h 6e64 as the original, since there
52
an obvious motive
omission.
GALATIANS
for the (correct) interpretative gloss,
its
Lxx, where
is
it
Hebrew
verb nxn, "to accept," "approve," "delight in," "be pleased," and
which
"to take delight in," followed by an ace, dat., or dq with the ace, or sv with the dat.: Gen. 23^ Ps. 5i> I Chron. 29^ Ps. 77^ Sir. 9" i Mac. 8 Mt. 31^ 12I8 2 Thes. 22; (2) "to see fit," "to consent," "to choose," followed by an infinitive,
uses: (i) "to accept," "to be pleased with,"
Ps.
Mac.
2' 3'.
i2'2
Rom.
is^* I
Thes.
In this latter sense and construction the verb seems often to convey
the subsidiary implication that the purpose referred to
gracious towards those affected
is
kindly or
by the action expressed by the infinitive; See Ps. 401* 2 Mac. especially is this true when the verb is used of God. 14" Lk. 1232 Col. ii9; cf. the use of euBoxfa (which had clearly acquired
its
as one of
Sol.
8" Lk. 2i< Phil. 215, and see S. and H. on Rom. lo^: "In this sense it came to be used almost technically of the good-will of God to man."
It is doubtless with such
the divine act that Paul uses the verb in this place.
sises at
The
clause
emphathat
owed
his "call" to
God and
the
call itself
was an act
of divine grace.
'AcpopiXetv signifies not "to remove from a place," but "to mark off from something else," "to separate or set apart from others" (Mt. 13" 25" Lk. 6 Acts 19' 2 Cor. 6'' Gal. 2'^ Lev. 13*- " etfreq. in Lxx and
in classical writers)
and N. T. (Acts
[Lfi-zg^q [xou
13^
Rom.
8" (1322 b"); Lxx (Ex. 13^' Deut. 4", lO- In view of this meaning of (i<popi'C,Biv,
to
xoiXfaq
what
is
in
any case
See Judg.
9
its
161^ Ps.
22" 7i
Acts
32 148
On
the Pauline usage of the word xaXito, see on v.' and on the meanZi&
is
manifestly instrumental,
It
stricter
of the term.
marks
its
object not as that which, standing, so to speak, between the doer of the
effect, is
e. g.,
is
accomplished
(as,
Rom.
Rom.
which standing behind the action renders it possible; so, e. 18 I Thes. 4^ Cf. note on 5t(i instrumental under
x^P^'^^o?
Acts
1.
i*
v.
The
phrase 8ta
auxoG
may
I,
i6
53
Xva evayyeXi^coiiiaL avrbv ev rok eOveaiv, "that I might preach him among the Gentiles." The verb ua77. itself characterises the message as glad tidings, or perhaps rather as the
{cf.
on
v.^),
while
amov
(ace. of con-
Eph. tent; cf. for this construction v.^^ i Cor. 151 2 Cor. ii^ 2^7 and Delbriick, Vergleichende Syntax, 179), referring to tov
vlov avTOV defines its substance.
similar thought of
in Christ himself
i^^ Phil, i^^
is
the
ex-
summed up
Cor.
i^^ 2
Rom.
is''^ '' i
Cor.
The
use
the
present
tense
evayyeXi^cofMai,
following
the
aorists
KaXeaa^, and airoKoXv^lrai indicates that the apostle has distinctly in mind that these definite events had for their 4^2 purpose a continued preaching of the gospel. Cf. 1 Thes.
a(f)OpL(Ta<;,
Phil. 2^9
Eph.
4^8.
dered into English the clause would read, "that I might continue to preach him, as glad tidings (or as the good news)
among
the Gentiles."
I'Ovtq and xivra to: IOvt) word eOviQ is used by Paul in the But otherwise and almost unigeneral sense meaning "nations." formly it means "Gentiles" as distinguished from Jews. This is most
2^- " " clearly the sense in this letter, except perhaps in 38^; see 38a. 14, Undoubtedly then Paul means here to define the divinely in-
"
tended sphere of his preaching as among the Gentiles. Whether he recognised this fact at the time of the revelation which had this preaching as its purpose, or whether the perception of this definition of his 26^^ work came later, this passage does not decide. According to Acts The preposition ev is imporit came in connection with his conversion.
tant, indicating that the scope of his mission as conceived
by him was
not simply the Gentiles (for this he must have written euaYT^'''^"E^' a^^h^ Tolq eOvsatv) but among the Gentiles, and by implication included
all
who were
ov
in Gentile lands.
Cf.
on
2--
evOeca^
TrpoaavedefjLrjv
aapKL
fcal
ai/JLari,
"immedi-
The negative and blood." TrpoaavedeixTjv, not evdeoy^, which in that case it must ov limits have preceded, as in Lk. 21^; and this being so, evOeco^
must be taken with the whole sentence as far as 'Apa^iav, not simply ov Trpoaai^eOefjiTjp, since by its meaning evOecos calls for
54
GALATIANS
of non-action. Zahn's contention that the time of the departure to Arabia is not fixed except as within the three years of v. ^^ is therefore with-
out ground. Place for the events of Acts 919^-22 j^ust be found not at this point but after v.^^ Ltft. gives the sense correctly:
''Forthwith instead of conferring with flesh and blood.
.
departed,"
etc.
2apx{ xa\ aT^aTi, primarily denoting the parts of a living physical 2^*) is here used by metonymy, as a&p^ alone more frequently is, for a being having such a body, i. e., for a corporeally condi-
body (Heb.
with God.
14I8
for receiving or imparting. (See Chrysipp. ap. [Bernhardy, 959]: ovap yap xtvci (p-t]a', (iea<j&ii.zyov xpoaavaGej9at 6vecpox.p(TY}: "For he says that a certain man having had a dream conferred with the interpreter of dreams"; Luc. Jup. Trag. i;
communicate" whether
Suid.
s. V.
vs6tto(;
Diod.
Sic. 17.
OT)[jLefou,
"con-
Zahn ad
dat.,
loc.
pp. 64/.
is
In
2,
impartation
apparently what
in
is indicated by the general subject of discourse, viz., the source of his gospel; yet note the double aspect of the act referred to in the passages quoted above, involving narrating the dream or the
receiving, as
sign
it.
17. ovhe
avrjXOov
ek 'Iepoa6\v/ia
tt/oo?
tov<;
irpo
e/xov
aTToaroXov^, "nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those that were apostles before me." The reference is, of course, particularly to the
Twelve, yet would include any, such as James, recognised as apostles before Paul himself reoffice.
temporal sense.
The The
preposition irpo
is
evidently
of the
Christian
they or
movement as conducted by the Twelve, and that the leaders among them still resided there. The use
tion of the apostleship of the Twelve, and implies that Paul regarded his apostleship and that of the Twelve as of essen-
I,
17
55
tially the
same
character.
Cf.
p 363
at the time
regarded himself as already It possibly suggests that he necessarUy to, an apostle, but does not referred
involve this.
066I d^vfjXOov:
SAKLP al. pier. It. Vg. Syr. (harcl-txt.) Arm. Aeth. Boh.
Victorin. Ambrst. Aug. Hier.;
oOSs
(psh. harcl-mg.) Bas.Thphl 103, 181, 429, 462, Syr. dcxrjXeov: that of iv- Alexandrian and The attestation of dcx- seems to be Western, dvi^Xeov under the reading might arise by assimilation, Either Syrian. that of ^'^ but the former more easily influence of v.i, dcxfjXOov under speak it was common usage to because of the d, 'hgo.bXw^a. Because Voc. s. v.) d^fjXOov Jerusalem (as in v.-; cf. M. and M. of going up to dvfjXeov than the reverse, but would be more likely to be changed to probabiUty is on the side of ivT^XGov, and for the same reason intrinsic greater weight. The preponderthe latter is in this case perhaps of favour of dvTjX6ov. So Tdf. ance of evidence is but slightly in
BDFG
WH.
et al.
Contra Zahn.
Arabia." hXkh airrikOov ek 'kpa^lav, ''but I went away into not specifically of this visit to Arabia, though The purpose
stated,
is
denies not only that he above. By that phrase the apostle Twelve in particular, but that he sought instruction from the at all, excluding not put himself in communication with men The of it. of instruction, but the imparting only the receiving is that he possible, impUcation only natural, almost the only sufficienUy mdicated sought communion with God, a thought
''flesh and blood" and on on the one side by the antithesis of which of the relatively desert land to the other by the mention The view of some of the early fathers (adopted he went. no instruction from substantially by Bous.) that he sought hastened to Arabia to men, but having received his message people" of this gospel to the "barbarous and savage
preach the
the early views see Ltft., foreign land (for fuUer statement of in that case sustained by the language. He must p. 90) is not expression as irpoaaveeeM^, but some such
God must
at once have
^6
GALATIANS
thought which he had hitherto accepted, and, no doubt, furnished also the premises of an entirely
new system
of thought.
But
built
new one
on the new premises and as complete as the materials and his power of thought enabled him to make it, however urgent the necessity for it, could not have been the work of an hour or a day. The process would have been simpler had the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ been, as it was to some of his fellow Jews, the mere addition to Judaism of the belief that Jesus was the long-expected Messiah; it would have been simpler if the acceptance of Jesus had been to him what it doubtless was to many of his Gentile converts, the acceptance of a new religion with an almost total displacement of former religious views and practices. To Paul the revelation of Jesus as the Son of God meant neither of these, but a revolutionary revision of his former beliefs, which issued in a conception of religion which differed from the primitive Christian faith as com-
monly held by Jewish Christians perhaps even more than the from current Judaism. Only prolonged thought could enable him to see just how much of the old was to be
latter differed
abandoned, how
much
revised,
how much
retained unchanged.
Many
new and old even so much of a new system as would him to begin his work as a preacher of the new faith. A
of retirement in
which he should
in
and
in itself
evangelism.
(see belovv
on the meaning
Aside from the question whether there were Jews in Arabia, and whether Paul at this early period recognised with sufficient
clearness his mission to the Gentiles to lead
him
to seek at once
his letters
a Gentile
for
ahke from
and
of Acts that
work
and
of civilised
life.
A
civ-
withdrawal to a region
inhabited
either Jewish or
Roman
I,
17
57
ilisation is
439
[Encyc.
Bib.).
Its
northwestern boundary
was some-
what vague, but the term generally included the Sinaitic peninsula, and excluded Palestine and Phoenicia. Within this great territory, inhabited doubtless by many nomad tribes, the kingdom of the Nabateans established itself some time previous to 312 b. c. (see Encyc. Bib. In Jos. Ant. 14. 15 /. (i^), which refers to the art. "Nabateans"). time of Hyrcanus II and Antipater, father of Herod, Aretas, known from other sources to be king of the Nabateans, is spoken of as king of the Arabians (cf. also 2 Mac. 58); his country is said to border upon
Judea and its capital to be Petra. 2 Cor. ii'^ has been interpreted as showing that at the time to which our present passage refers the Nabatean dominion included Damascus. See Schiirer, Gesch. des jiid. Volkes,^ In that case Paul would seem to say that he went vol. I, pp. 726 Jf. from a city of Arabia into Arabia, which would be like saying that one went from London into England. But it is known that Pompey gave
Damascus
34
A. D.
to Syria,
of
to
(between 34 and 62 a. d. evidence is lacking) it was under Rome; while a passage which Josephus {Ant. 14. 117 [7^]) quotes from Strabo refers to an ethnarch of the Jews in Alexandria, and thus indicates that
the
title
probable,
which Paul
is
was an ethnarch of the Nabateans in the city, Damascus was not under Nabatean rule, hence not in Arabia. This both removes all difficulty from this sentence, and makes it practically certain that by 'Agoc^ioc Paul means the Nabatean kingdom. See Clemen, Paulus, 1 83; Lake,
Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 321
ff.*
Into what portion of the kingdom Paul went the sentence does not,
of course, indicate.
cluded in Arabia
of the epistle,
That the Sinaitic peninsula was sometimes inshown in 4", which, if the clause is a genuine part shows also that Paul so included it. But this does not
is
*Zahn, Neue
Brief
d.
Bachmann, Der
zweite
(nomad?) Nabateans
with
e4>povpei, TJjv
in the vicinity of
Damascus.
But while
this supposition
comports well
58
prove that
it
GALATIANS
was to this peninsula that Paul went. If it is necessary went to a city, Petra in the south and Bostra in the north are among the possibilities. There is nothing to necessitate the supposition that he went far from Damascus, nor anything to exclude a far-distant journey except that if he had gone far to the south a return to Damascus would pcrhapj have been improbable.
to suppose that he
et? Aafiacr/cov.
"and again
I returned
Damascus." An indirect assertion that the experience described above (cnroKaXv-^jraL top vlov avrov iv i/xoi) occurred at
Damascus
(cf.
Acts
93. 4
9^-22
and
parallels);
it
must
be-
cause of Acts
is to be interpreted as an experience wholly subjective. The identity of place, Damascus, and the evident fact that both passages refer to the experience by which Paul was led to abandon his opposition to Jesus and accept him as the Christ, require us to refer both statements to the same general occasion; but not (nor are
we
other. As shown above our present passage deals only with the subjective element of the experience. For the apostle's
by the
own
objectively,
(c)
Cor. 9^
151-8.
visit to
Evidence of his independent apostleship drawn from a Jerusalem three years after his conversion (i^^-^o).
apostle
The
now
takes
first visit
in
it
evi-
which I write
to
am
not lying.
d<^
'lepoaoXvfia
to
la-roprjcrai,
"Then
went up
Jerusalem to
is
Cephas."
The phrase
argumenta-
I,
i8
59
merely chronological.
The mention
of the
The
three
which preis
The exact
this phrase,
it
length of the
from
20^1,
which
prob1- 22).
ably a round
number
{cf.
Acts
and with
Acts
19^'
In reckoning the years of their kings the later Jews apparently counted the years from one New Year's Day, the ist of Abib
(or
as a year.
method
It
is
how
was spent
in Arabia.
Kt^ipav is
the reading of
S*AB
2>2n
Boh. Aeth.
which
is
familiar
'['aTwp, TSptq, oIBa) is found in Greek down, meaning "to inquire"; in Aristotle and later writers in the sense "to narrate," "to report"; it has this sense also in i Esdr. 131(33), 40(42)^ the only passages in biblical Greek beside
all; it
Pomp.
in Jos. {Ant. 8. 46
Bell. 6.
81
Clem. Rom.
(8=^)
meaning "to
visit"
(persons).
is
/oc.
The
his
found also in Josephus. By the use of this journey as having had for its purpose
and
see
KoX
iire/jLeiva 7r/3o?
avrov
rjfjiepa^ Se/cairevre-
"And
remained
The use
with
its
to Peter, rather
than
Tr/aoV
6o
GALATIANS
the preposition
tt/^o?
cf.
On
1
expressing motion,
Th. s.v.
etc.
and
for exx. in
Paul see
Thes. 3^ Gal.
is
2^ 4^^'
"^,
The mention
of the stay
how
impossible
all
it
was
to regard
him
that
'laKco^ov rov
Tov Kvpiov.
"and no other
It
is
On
approximation to aXKo<^, denoting merely numerical non-identity, not qualitative distinction, el fxtj means here, as
always before a noun, ''except."
el
fiT]
'laKcofiov, etc., is
.
an exception
.
.
ov/c
Either
is
in
el,
III
)^
j^^ ^j^jg
make
the exception
apply to a part only of the preceding assertion is excluded, since Paul certainly can not mean to say that he saw no one in Jerusalem except Peter and James, or even, according at least
to Acts 927, no person of importance. The phrase must probably be taken as stating an exception to the whole of the pre-
The assumption
ceding assertion, and as implying that James was an apostle. that the term ctTroaroXo^ is applied to James
in a broad and loose sense only (so Sief., e. g.) is without good ground in usage and is especially unjustified in view of the fact that the term airoaroXayv under which James is by the exceptive
Cf. detached
note on 'AttoVtoXo?,
p. 363.
who
I
James, here designated the brother of the Lord, is doubtless the same is similarly spoken of in Mk. 6', and simply as James in Gal. 2- '*
cf.
Cor.
9^.
He
is
never men-
He
brought to believe in Jesus by the vision recorded in i Cor. 15^ early took a prominent place in the church at Jerusalem (Gal 2-
is^'ff),
Acts
I,
19-20
61
i). The view of Jerome which idenJames the brother of the Lord with James the son of Alphaeus (see defence of it by Meyrick in Smith, DB art. "James," and criticism by Mayor in HDB art. "Brethren of the Lord") rests on no good evidence. Nor is there any positive evidence for the theory that he was older than Jesus, being the son of Joseph and a wife preSee Ltft.'s defence of this (Epiphanian) view in Disvious to Mary. sertation II, appended to his Galatians, and reprinted as Dissertation I, in his Dissertations on the Apostolic Age; and Farrar's argument for the (Helvidian) view that the brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph and Mary, in Early Days of Christianity^ chap. XIX, and in Smith, DB art. "Brothers of the Lord"; also Mayor, op. cit., and Cone, art. "James" in Encyc. Bib. Mt. i^^ and Lk. i^ naturally imply that the early church knew of children of Mary younger than Jesus. It does
all
named
in
Mk.
6^
were borne
by
her.
dren of
Ltft. u.
is
But neither is there any direct evidence that there were chilJoseph by a former marriage, Jn. ig^^. " might suggest it (c/. s.) but its late date and the uncertainty whether the statement
On the other hand the implication of the infancy narrative of Mt. and Lk. that Joseph was not the father of Jesus and hence that his sons by a former marriage were not brothers of Jesus, can not be cited against the Epiphanian view; for not only does this presuppose a strictness in the use of the term brother which is unsustained by usage,
poses.
title
" brother
Lord" was given to James, and the evidence of the Pauline letters in general {cf. on 4O as to the time when the theory of the virgin birth of Jesus became current, make it nearly certain that the former
much preceded
20.
OL
the latter.
he
<ypd(j)co vfilv,
on
ov
ylrevBo/iat.
which I write to you, behold, before God, I am not lying." For similar affirmations of Paul that in the presence of God he is speaking truly, see i Thes. 2^
as respects the things
2 Cor. i^ ii^i.
Its use here
"Now
stated are given not simply for their historical value, but as
from wonder why Paul should use such very strong language unless he had been
the Twelve,
^3
V.
(or
1^)
on.
Even
visits to the
other
62
(d)
GALATIANS
Evidence of his independent apostleship drawn from the
(i^^-^^).
2^ compared with i" shows to have been eleven or even fourteen years, during which he was out of Judea and not in touch with the other apostles, yet was carrying on his work as a preacher of the
The
apostle
now
gospel.
^^Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, ^^and I was
unknown by face
to the
Our former
persecutor is
now
preach-
God
in
me.
21. "ETreira rjXdov ek ra KKljiara r^? ^vpLa<; koX
7uKLa<i.
T7]<;
Kt-
"Then
is
of Syria
and
Cilicia."
That
this
was a period
of retirement,
implied in
evayyeXt^eraL.
to
On
tion whether he
The
very unusual.
yCkiiiaxa,
The
one would
Acts i
one.
See,
e. g.,
276; Jos.
Ant.
all
(i2),
which
reflect
the
154 (4O; Bell. 2. 95 (6^ 2. 247 but uniform usage of N. T. and Josephus, to
8.
36
(23) 12.
175 (4O and 12. 233 (41') are not really exceptions. Note especially Acts 15", xaxd t'^v 'Avxtdxeiav -mX Supfav xal KiXtxfav. In
which Ant.
13.
in the same order, the article by BD cat^^" Thphyl^ only. This strong preponderance of usage makes the second article in the present passage a very difficult reading, but even more strongly points to the secondary character of the reading without it, sustained by '^*t,z, 241, 1908. That some mss. should have omitted it in conformity with common
Acts
is
15^1,
usage
is
all
it,
departing
almost impossible.
22.
Toi/Sata?
ev XpLo-TM,
"and
to
The
periphrastic
form
I,
20-22
6:^
unknown."
The motive
of these state-
and and the non-acquaintance of the Judean churches with him is doubtless to show that his work during this period was not in that region in which it would have been if he had placed himself under the direction of the Twelve, but that, on the contrary, he began at once an independent mission. This, rather than, e. g., the intention to show that he was not under the influence or instruction of these churches, is what is required by the nature of the argument, which has to do not with his
of the apostle respecting his departure into Syria
Cilicia
ments
On
the
expression
Tal<; eKic\r]aiaL<;
iv
X/3icrTft),
cf.
Thes.
i^ 2^^
2 Thes. i^ Phil i^
On
meaning
I 6 b,
and
cf.
5^
The
ex-
Jerusalem.
tion of
it,
Nor
is
by the
since this
meeting face to
face those
whom
between the events referred to in v." and those here recorded; nor by the visit of Paul to Jerusalem, as recorded in vv. i'> i, since the statement that he was unknown can hardly be taken so literally as to mean
In favour of the more where a similar phrase is employed without the exclusion of Jerusalem. Nor can Acts g"-" be regarded as a serious argument against the more inclusive sense of the term. For, though v." manifestly implies such an acquaintance of Paul with the Christians of Jerusalem as to contradict his statement here if it includes Jerusalem, and though v." itself might be
that no the church had ever seen him.
inclusive use of the
member of
term
is
also
Thes.
2^*,
by
vv.
^s-
'
'
such as to
call in
Acts 26"
it refers
even more at
to a period subseJn.
i^*-".
Nor can
3" be cited as
mean Judea
64
GALATIANS
language there being f)'IouBa(a y^> not
'Iepoa6Xu[xa
ID.
v.a\
-f)
Mt.
^i',
icaaa
-^
and
184
ig''):
'ip-q[ioq
xaca
is
in Jerusalem, so
may
Jerusalem be in Judea.
is
On
the other
hand
it
would be without force, since, as pointed out above, the reference is in any case probably not to these churches as a source of instruction, but as those among whom he would probably have been working if he had
put himself under the guidance of the Twelve. While, therefore, in speaking of "the churches of Judea" Paul may have had chiefly in
of Jerusalem, the
Of the location
of the churches of
we have no exact knowledge. On the extent of the by the term, see detached note on 'louBate, pp. 435/.
23.
fJLovov
territory covered
Clco/ccoi' r)fjLa<;
irore vvv
evayyeXi^erai rrjv
(kept hearing),
now preaching
him
;
The
members
of the churches
mentioned in
v.
22
noun
ing
it
r)fjid<;
to be a direct quotation.
The
present participle
The
aorist
simply as a (past)
of
fact.
Cf.
GMT
140,
BMT
127.
?7/-ta9
refers,
course, not
directly to those to
Christians in general.
the
body
of Christian
the faith
exercise.
^1/
which sense the word is never used by Paul, but in Christ which the preachers of the gospel bade men Concerning its nature see more fully under 2^. On
cf.
TTore eTTopdec
is
v. ".
What
life;
is
of the church
the
Jesus as the
The
tense
is
I,
24
65
24.
in
fcai
iSo^a^ov iv
i/nol
rov 6e6v.
"and they
glorified
God
me,"
i. e.,
found in
me
On
the sphere within which the action takes place) see Th. I 6
though the
from satisfactory;
is
W. XLVIII a
Acts
729
Rom.
2i^' 23
59 Gal. 3^^'
^*.
The
satisfaction
churches of Judea found in Paul's missionary activity in this period is in sharp contrast with the opposition to him which
later
developed in Jerusalem.
See
2^-^^
Of the several
ex-
more
friendly attitude of
to preach
that though he
of this
was doing
so the Christians of
(c)
not yet developed in the churches of Judea, the first is probably true in the sense and to the extent that Paul had not yet
had occasion to assume a polemic attitude in the matter; but in any other sense seems excluded by his repeated impHcation that the gospel which he now preached he had preached from But in that case there the beginning (see i^^ 2^ and comment). The third is, moreover, the one is httle room for the second. most consistent with the testimony of this letter; see especially
2*,
with
its
opponents of Paul's
lem church.
for
And
i/iOL
was inciden-
his mission
opposition to
by intimating, what 2^ says more clearly, that the him was a recent matter, and did not represent the
Judean Christians. On the other hand, must not be forgotten that his main contention throughout this chapter and the next is not that he had been approved by the Judean Christians, but that he had from the first acted
5
66
independently.
GALATIANS
The whole sentence
/jlovov
. .
.
iv i/Mo{
is
momentary
(e)
Evidence of
(2^-1).
conduct on a
ceding one
visit to
now
At the
then to
had had no contact with the Jerusalem apostles; the fact that when he went up it was not at their comin obedience to divine revelation; then, indicating
mand, but
was
then, as
now
in Galatia,
the
circumcision of
the
Gentiles
who had
he
tells
how he
Jerusalem Christians,
and in a private session before the pillars of the church, James and Cephas and John, since he recognised that their disapproval of his preaching might render of no avail his future work and undo what he had already done. Though, out of consideration for the opponents of his gospel of freedom from law, who had
crept into the Jerusalem church for the purpose of robbing the
Christians of their freedom and bringing the law, the apostles urged
them
into
him
to circumcise Titus, a
bondage to Greek
Christian
from
emit
inent men, whose eminent past did not weigh with him, as
new
to him, but
when
Peter to
present the gospel to the Jews, had given to Paul also a com-
Paul
and Barnabas were to preach among the Gentiles, Peter among the Jews, and the only additional stipulation was that Paul and Barnabas should remember the poor among the Jewish Christians, which thing, Paul affirms, he gladly did.
II,
67
to
Then
with
I again went up
laid before
Jerusalem,
ivith
And I
which I
of em-
men
lest
^But
who was with me and was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised {^ow it was because of the false brethren surreptitiously brought in, who sneaked in to spy out our freedom which
not even Titus,
that they
urged]. Ho
whom
),
we
way
something
And from
the
those
ing
new
me
men
''but
on
contrary
I had been
^for
he
^and when, I
to
who wrought for Peter unto an me unto an apossay, they perceived the grace
to
Barnabas
right
hands of fel-
the Gentiles
ek
'lepoao-
XvfMi
"Then
went up
to Jerusalem."
{cf.
i^^- ^^)
it is
i^^)
indicates that
is
And
had been in Jerusalem is the strongest possible way of denying communication with the Twelve. It follows also that, had there been other visits to Jerusalem in this period, he must have mentioned them, unless
implication, that he
by
68
indeed they had been
GALATIANS
made under conditions which excluded communication with the Twelve, and this fact had been well known to his readers. Even in that case he would naturally have spoken of them and appealed to the well-known absence of the apostles or have spoken, not of going to Jerusalem, but of
seeing those
who were
by
Btdk
ixdv.
The
'ixsncc
and the present v. mark the successive steps of a chronological series, and at the same time of the apostle's argument, because he is arranging it on a chronological framework; they thus acquire as in some other cases (see i Thes. 4^^ i Cor. 15") a secondary logical force. That ^i& may mean "after the lapse of" is clearly shown by Hdt. 3"; Soph. Ph. 758; Xen. Cyr. i. 4^, and other passages cited by L. & S. s. v. A. II 2, and by W. XLVII i. (b) (WM. p. 475), and that this use was current in Jewish Greek appears from Deut. 9" Mk. 2^ Acts 241^ That this rather than "throughout," the only alternative meaning in chronological expressions, is the meaning here is evident from the unsuitableness of "throughout" to the
CTceiTa of
i^*^i
dvl^Tjv. On the question whether the period is to be reckoned from the same starting point as the three years previously named (118) or from the end of that period, there is room for difference of
verb
opinion.
Sief. Lip.
Wies.
Ell.
Alf.
For the exposition of the apostle's is of little consequence. His purpose is evidently to emphasise the limited amount of his communication with the Twelve as tending to show that he did not receive his gospel from them, and for this purpose it matters little whether the period during which he had no communication with the Twelve was fourteen years or eleven. For the chronology of the life of Paul, however, the question is of more significance. While it is impossible to determine with certainty which view is correct, the balance of probability seems
Zahn, Bous. the
thought at this point the question
to favour reckoning the fourteen years as subsequent to the three years.
argument requires him to mtmtion not how long he made this visit, but during how long a period he remained without personal communication with the other apostles, which period would be reckoned, of course, from his latest preceding visit. This argmnent is somewhat strengthened by the use of the preposition Stdc, which, meaning properly "through," and coming to
of his
after his conversion
The nature
also suggests that the period of fourteen years constitutes a unit in the
apostle's
apostles.
mind
an
unbroken period
II,
1-2
69
by Grot. and Zahn ad loc), resting as it does on no external evidence, calls for no refutation. The supposed difficulties of the chronology of the apostle's life based on Sexaxeaadpwv are insufficient to justify this purely conjectural emendation of the text.
The
Semi,
et al.,
named by
Sief.
xdiXiv
It
is
lacking in
no ancient ms., though standing in DFG d g Goth. Aeth. after dcvi^Tjv, and in but one ancient version, the Boh. The quotation of the sentence without it by Melon. Iren. Ambrst. Chrys. seems insufficient
evidence that the original text lacked
it.
fjiTa
i. e.,
accompanied by him,
as in
Mt.
Thes.
312 2
for the
and
avvTrapaXa/Scbv koI
is
also along."
Titus
ranked
Barnabas, Titus.
of the fact
The
at this point concerning the reason for taking Titus with him.
But the
specific
mention
(vv.^-s)
make
whole question
BMT
and
by an
aorist
it is
conceived of as a simple
not as an action in progress, least of all as one within the time of which the action of the principal verb falls.
2.
ave^rjv Be
went up
in
ac[a]
cordance with
revelation.
revelation,"
i.
e.,
in obedience to such
The word
ci7roKciXir\jri,<i
meaning here as in i^^ (gee the discussion there and detached note on ATroKaXinrrco and 'ATTO/caXuj/^t?, p. 433), but refers in
^
7
this case to
GALATIANS
a disclosure of the divine will respecting a
specific
Concerning the
specific
method
in
which the
Nor can
it
be determined
to a
here
(specific) revelation, or
On
however,
cf.
2 Cor. 121^-
Acts
13^ !&
21^^ 2']'^^-.
For a similar use of the preposition xaT(i cj. Acts 23'! Rom. 16" 2 Thes. "In accordance with," being the more usual and exact meaning of xaxd, is to be preferred to the nearly equivalent sense, "because of." In Rom. 16" and Eph. 3', though the phrase is the same, the sense is
3.
different.
KaX
aveOejxrjv
auTot?
to
evayyeXiov
KTjpvaaco
iv
toI<;
eOveaLv,
"And
I laid before
among
the Gentiles."
them the gospel which I preach The pronoun aurot?, having no defis
initely expressed
antecedent,
to be
taken as referring in
general to those
tian
whom
community.
in i^
he visited in Jerusalem, i. e., the ChrisConcerning the word evayyeXcov, see deis
doubtless the
same as
tical in
The
were not
historical,
nor prac-
work
believers.
The use
ing the
made
this
to Jerusalem.
Cf.
though with a reverse use of tenses, in i". The use of a past tense, eKrjpv^ev, would almost have suggested that what he
then preached he was
now no
longer preaching.
"Among
the
II,
2
also, so far as
71
they were in and ek ra eOprj
to the Gentiles
Gentile lands.
in 2 8, all of
in i^^
which indicate that Paul conceived his apostleship but to the people of Gen-
lands.
*Ay(xxlQri[ii,
found from
25'*,
Mac.
3^;
Acts
Homer down, is apparently used only in later "to present" (matter for consideration). See 2 only N. T. instance, and c/. M. & M. Voc. s. v.
Toh BoKovacv, "but privately before the men of Those who are here designated as ol Bokovvt<; eminence." are evidently the same who in v. ^ are called ol SoKovvre^ and ol SoKOVpre^ elvai tl, and in v. ^ ol BoKovvre^ (ttvXol ehai, and in v. ^ are also identified as James and Cephas and John.
KUT Ihlav
3e
By
men
named
Christian
community
in Jerusalem.
There
is
nothing in the
On
"/iew
is
same
inter-
spoken of in aveOefiTjv
merely a more definite designation of avrol^, or to a different was both a public and a private meeting at
which Paul set forth his gospel, probabihty is in favour of the latter; for although an epexegetic limitation may certainly be
conjoined to what precedes by
in such cases to repeat the
limit
(c/.
Be,
yet
it is
Rom.
3^2 930 i
Cor.
i^^ 2^ Phil. 2^
he
to
in
Cor.
otherwise).
In this case, moreover, it is difliPaul should have used the very general
to see
indeed, he
why
if
Among modHoist.
Sief.
Wies.
et at.,
Ell.
Ltft.
Mey. Weizs.
Beet.
interviews; Zeller,
Neander,
Vernon Bartlet
(in
Emmet,
et at.,
but one.
72
GALATIANS
On
et al.)
mean
cf.
Smyrn.
xotv^.
7':
ix-^ts
The phrase
SoxoOvxeq, vv.^'
an example
of a usage rare in
is
The
found in
Eur. Hec. 295 and Troiad. 613, both times in the sense "men of standing and consequence, men of esteem." There is no hint of any derogatory flavour in the phrase.
this head,
xoCii;
In Herodian
6. i',
ooxouvxaq
xal
cwcppovsaxiixouc; following.
dignified
The meaning is " those esteemed both most With this cf. ol Soxouvxeq axuXot, v. The
'.
expression
as
SoxoOvxeq elvat
xt
w.^'>-
Zahn holds, the shorter form is derived by ellipsis) same form and meaning in Plato, Gorg. 472 A, where it
with
e05oxf;jLouq
is
found in the
synonymous
where the
cf.
phrase
inverted.
The same
phrase, however,
something"; so Plut. Apophth. lacon. 49, and probably Plato, Apol. 35 A. The meanings of the word Soxelv itself as used in these or similar
phrases are as follows:
i.
"To be
accounted, esteemed"
;
(a)
in the
cf.
Epictet.
(?)
Enchir.
Bd^^jq
e!va{
xic;,
dxfaxst
Mac. 9"
Mk. io
i
2.
"To
account
i^e
Prov.
261*.
For an espe-
same meaning,
in vv.
2- I',
Thus in all of the word has substantially the vv.**- ' the word is colourless,
itself carries
the idea of
high standing.
fir)
7rco<;
ek Kevov Tpi'xw
t)
eSpa/jLOv.
fMi]
ttg)?
expresses
apprehension
more fully below). The whole phrase impHes that the apostle saw in the existing situation a danger that his work on behalf of the Gentiles, both past and future, might be rendered ineffectual by the opposition of the Jerusalem church, or of certain men in it, and the disapproval of the apostles, and that
fearing this, he sought to avert
hension
is,
of course, not a
it. The ground of his appredoubt concerning the truth of the it would be an impossible incon-
n,
73
very midst of his strenuous insistence upon the truth and divine
source of that gospel
but
it
no doubt, the conviction work by the leading apostles in interfere with that work and to a
rather,
degree render
ineffectual.
The
apostle's
conduct
own
last visit to
Jerusalem
esp. yJ^),
Rom.
1525-32^
show
clearly that it
was
to
him a matter
of the
utmost impor-
upon same time to maintain the unity of the Christian movement, avoiding any division into a Jewish and a Gentile branch. To this end he was wiUing to divert energy and time from his work of preaching to the Gentiles in order to raise money for the Jewish Christians, and to delay his journey
tance, not only to prevent the forcing of the Jewish law
money
to Jeru-
salem.
truth of his
own
on a non-legal basis, would be disastrous alike to the Jewand the Gentile parties which would thus be created.
Efq xev6v found also in
(Diod. Sic. 19.
Lxx
1. 275 (14O; in late Greek writers N. T. by Paul (i Thes. 3= 2 Cor. 6' Phil. 2i) is with him always, as usually in the Lxx, a phrase of result meaning "uselessly," "without effect." Running, as a figure of speech for effort directed to an end, is not uncommon with Paul (i Cor. 9"- " Gal. 57 Phil. 215; see also Phil. 31* 2 Tim. 4'). The clause ^i^ eSpaixov has been explained: (i) As an indirect question, "whether perhaps I was running or had run in vain." xpix^^ So is in this case a present indicative, retained from the direct form. Usteri, assuming an ellipsis of "in order that I might learn from them," Wies., who assumes an ellipsis of "in order that they might perceive," and Sief., who supplies "to put to test the question," and emphasises the fact that since [li] expects a negative answer the apostle implies no doubt respecting the result of his work, but only the abstract
and
in the
74
GALATIANS
possibility of its fruitlessness.
(2)
As a
final clause,
(3)
"that
might not
most probably a
pres. ind.
would be
is
(GMT
much
less
So Ltft.
To
of these
it is
to be objected that
[ATQ Tzaq. Goodwin {GMT 369 fn. i) distinguishing clearly, as Sief. following Kuhner (II 1037, 1042, but cf. Kiihner-Gerth, II 391 fn., which
and
&
S. sub.
[xtq
is
common
in later
\ir}
xox; is certainly
with
whom
it is
always a
final particle,
Cor. 89
9"
Cor. 2' 9*
n^
is
la^" Gal.
is
4"
Thes.
3; it is
not used by
yui]
no certain instance of
is
so used
N. T.; Lk.
ii'^,
which
generally so taken,
it is
at best a doubtful
case.
To
used in
final clauses
and
to express
here.
an unattained pur-
is fulfilled
The verb
dvsGltxTjv
stances, and the apostle certainly does not mean to characterise the purpose that he might not run in vain as unattained. The attempt of Frit.,
approved by W. LVI
(b)
(WM.
p.
might
easily
not only
make
iveOlixirjv, etc.,
pothesis.
See
GMT
$;}:^,
The
third interpretation
consistent
both with general Greek usage and with Paul's use of ^jlt^ xgx;, and is the only probable one. It involves, of course, the implication of a purpose of the apostle's action, viz., to avert what he feared, that his
future
work should be
is
fruitless, or his
But such
is
implication
pressed, the
common
in clauses of fear.
When
ex-
[li]
clause expresses
an ac-
tion previously
2310 2 Cor.
12");
when
the fear
of apprehension, conveys
preceding verb
(2
Cor. 9*
by implication the purpose of the immediately i Thes. 3'). The use of the aorist indicative
n, 3
following a statement of fact suffices, however, to
75
show that
in this
The
work being rendered fruitless was upon a misunderstanding of the force of a past
all,
in this case
is
but regret
but that
and the outcome, which is the real object of fear, as yet unknown or undetermined. Cf. GMT 369; BMr 227, and see chap. 4", where the object clause refers to a past fact, the outcome of which
the event
past,
is,
however, not only as yet unknown to him, but quite possibly yet
to be determined
in
avv
e/Jboly
irept-
Titus,
work proving fruitless (by reason of the opposition of the Jerusalem church and apostles) Paul here sets forth the fact that on this very occasion and in a test-case his view
viously suggested hypothesis, see
prevailed.
For aXXd introducing the evidence disproving a preRom. 4^ i Cor. 2^ The fact
an argumentative purpose, and doubtless as emphasising the significance of the fact that he was not circumcised. It is upon this element of the sentence
especially that ovBe
its
emphasis.
The
would
first of all
The non-circumcision
of Titus, therefore,
was
The phrase 6 avv ifioc is thus concessive in effect. See BMT The participial phrase, "^Wr)v cov, adds a fact, probably 428. like o avv ifjLOL, known to the readers, but necessary to be borne in mind in order to appreciate the significance of the fact about
to be stated.
it
also
is
concessive
76
GALATIANS
437),
"though he was a Greek" (and hence uncircum"although a Greek and hence under preeminent obligation to be circumcised," which neither Paul nor Though the Greek conhis opponents would have claimed). struction is different in the two phrases, the thought is best expressed in Enghsh by joining them as in the translation given above. Segond also renders "qui etait avec moi et qui etait Grec." The term '^^Xkrjv is doubtless to be taken in its broad sense of ''Gentile," as in Rom. i^^ 2^- ^^etfreg., a usage which occurs also in Jos. Ant. 20. 262 (11^), and in the Christian This is the first mention of circumcision in the Fathers (Th.). The fact so well known to Paul and his readers as to epistle. require no expHcit mention, but clearly brought out later in the letter, that the legalistic party insisted most strenuously '^vajKaaOr] is upon circumcision, is here incidentally implied. undoubtedly to be taken as a resultative aorist {BMT 42), and ovSe rjvayKda-Orj denies not the attempt to compel but the success of the attempt. That the attempt was (unsuccessfully) made is clearly impHed in the context.
cised; not of course,
{BMT
The argument of Sief. for his interpretation, making ou5e YjvaYxd:cjOt] a denial that pressure was brought to bear on Paul, i. e., by the apostles, confuses the distinction between the meaning of the word and the force of its tense. dvaYxAt^o) is used consistently throughout N. T. in the present and imperfect with conative force (Acts 26 '^ Gal. 2" 6"), signifying "to apply pressure," "to (seek to) compel"; in the aorist, on the other hand, consistently with a resultative sense, in the active "to compel," in the passive, "to be forced" (Mt. 14" Mk. 6*^ Lk. 14" Acts 28'' 2 Cor. 12"). What, therefore, the aorist with oOx denies is simply the result. Whether that result did not ensue because no pressure was applied, or because the pressure was successfully resisted, can be determined only by the connection. The fact, however, that the imperfect with oux would have clearly expressed the thought that no effort was made, and the clear implication in the context that effort was made are practically decisive for the present case. Sief.'s contention that the context excludes effort on the part of the apostles to have Titus circumcised is unsupported by the context, and
involves a misapprehension of Paul's contention throughout the passage; this
is
not that the apostles did not disagree with him, and always
approved
his position,
this
with
its clear
II,
3-4
77
For other below on the various con-
xeptxtiTjOi^vat, see
.
.
structions ascribed to
Std:
(|''jSaS^^?ou<;-
4.
"now
it
it
was
because
the
false
e.,
what
those raised
by
the passage.
view
is
that
it is
expressed thus:
circumcised,
fact) it
"And
was compelled
to be
correct
under discussion in Jerusalem. There were, first, Paul and Barnabas, who stood for the poHcy of receiving Gentiles as
Christians without circumcision; on the other hand, there were those
whom
Paul characterises as
false
brethren,
and who
urged that Paul should waive his scruples and consent to the
circumcision of Titus.
the pillar apostles, with
whom
(v.
^)
and who because of Paul's representations finally themselves yielded and gave assent to Paul's view (vv.^-^). With the
second party
it
it
as necessary
whom
Paul designates as
false brethren,
but
as
who were
it
e\ddently regarded
or
by
convictions,
however mis-
taken,
was
desirable to consider.
On
all
78
Tlapeha%TO<;, a
theless given
GALATIANS
word not found in extant classical writings, is neverby the ancient lexicographers, Hesych. Phot, and Suid.
ad loc,
p. loi, fn.
In view Greek in a middle sense, and of the definition of this word by Hesych. Phot, and Suid. by the neutral term (iXk6xpioq, it is doubtful whether the passive sense can be insisted upon, as if these false brethren had been brought in by
of the frequent use of the passive of verbs in later
others.
The
by
no means excluding the thought that some within were interested in bringing them in, throws the emphasis upon their own activity in the
matter.
Nor
is
all
clearly
body into which they have come is what the term both etymologically and by usage suggests. }jsuBdi:5eX90<;, used elsewhere in N. T. only 2 Cor. ii^", evidently means those who profess to be brethren, i. e., to be true members of the
emphasised.
Cf. Paul's use of the term These words xape-.jdixToui; tj^suSaSiXipou? express, of course, Paul's judgment concerning these men when he wrote. That they were so looked upon by the other apostles at the
<J;euSax6aToXo<;, 2
The community into which "the false brethren" had made way is unnamed. That they had made their influence felt in Antioch, if not also generally among the churches having Gentile members, and that they came from Jerusalem and were in some sense representatives of that church, is implied in the very fact that Paul and Barnabas came up to Jerusalem
their
If,
therefore, TrapeiaciKTov^
and
TrapeLa-rjXOov
a visit to a church,
we
them "into the church at Antioch," or "into the churches among the Gentiles." But if, as is more probable, these words refer to incorporation into the membership of the body, then the reference is either to the church at Jerusalem, which is favoured by the facts above cited as indicating that they were actually from Jerusalem, or the Christian community in general, which is favoured by the indefiniteness of the language here employed and the fact that the apostle's indignation is most naturally explained if he is thinking of these men not as
additions to the Jerusalem church in particular, with which he
was not
directly concerned,
n, 4
Christian community.
79
it is
In either case
ema-
Gentile members.
Of the numerous constructions which have been adopted for the Stcl: tJ^suSaS^Xcpouq the following may be named: Those which make it limit some following word, (a) e?^a(xev. So, I omitting olq oiSI (in v.'; cf. textual note below), Tert. et ah, and in modern times Zahn, This yields the sense, "but because of the false brethren ... I yielded for a brief space." This may be dismissed because based on a text insufficiently supported by textual evidence, and giving the impossible sense that Paul yielded by way of the subphrase
.
jection
demanded by the
false
no;
5td:
Philippi;
p.
155.
first
to
make
<J;suBa5.
was
led
by the length
changing the thought from an asseron their account he did not yield into a denial that he yielded The objecto them, and leaving Sid: tJjsuBaS. without a regimen. tion of Sief. {ad loc, p. 98) to this interpretation that these two conceptions "yielded on account of" and "yielded to" are so different that the one could not be merged in the other is of little force; for certainly Paul might naturally think of a yielding to a demand made for the sake
of the sentence to insert olq, thus
tion that
Nor can
the fact
are
common
in Paul,
and
The
it
was
requested for the sake of the false brethren, or as Wies. in effect makes
it,
by them.
Is it to
which offered
itself
to the Gentiles
made
. .
brethren?
Std:
tJ^suSaS.
as giving not
the decisive reason, but for the urging of which Titus would have
all
Zahn,
him, finds the yielding and the subjection to have been to the
pillar apostles
and
in the fact of
coming to Jerusalem
to
submit
there (not in the circumcision of Titus, which he maintains Paul denies to have taken place)
it
apostles, but
stranger distortion of
So
the more necessary
GALATIANS
to
commend
it,
but,
which
it
as iidXtaTa
2.
chap. 6").
.
.
Those which make Btd; (]^euBaB. limit what precedes, introducing an epexegetic addition to the preceding statement. So Sief., who, joining this verse closely to the words qya-^v.&aQt] xep[T[jLTQ6^vat and mak.
ing oOx limit the whole phrase, finds in the sentence the meaning that
compel Titus
not
men might
unnaturally have urged the circumcision of Titus for the sake of the
Aside from on v.), this involves an extremely difficult if not impossible sense of M, concerning which see on v. '. To have yielded this meaning S td; tpeuBaS. must have stood in the least prominent position in the midst of the sentence, not subjoined and emphasised by hi, or if for the sake of making the
false brethren,
in fact applied.
iivctfK&cQr) (see
the
. . .
fact itself
4'euSa^-
unequivocal,
it
was
they must have become a phrase of concession or opposition, expressing the thought, "though urged by," or "in spite of the false brethren,"
by oOBI, "and not even for the sake of the on ouH under i^^. Mey. also joins this phrase closely to what precedes, but to the whole expression o6Zk TceptTtJLTjGYivat, and finds in it the reason why Titus was not circumcised,
or have been introduced
false brethren."
Cf.
i. e.,
it.
con-
for the
open to the same objection as i (b) above, viz., it implies that but advocacy of it by the false brethren Paul would have had no
If,
phrase
is
brethren, giving their reason for not asking for or consenting to the
circumcision, then
false
brethren
urged the circumcision of Titus, and that the Jerusalem apostles opposed
it
ren; a view
legalistic
it was being urged by the false brethwhich attributes to them a degree of opposition to the party in the Jewish portion of the church, and of champion-
ship of the freedom of the Gentiles, which does not comport with the
known history of the apostolic age, and which would, it would seem, have made this council itself unnecessary. Had the facts, moreover, been what this interpretation makes them, Paul could hardly have failed to bring out with greater distinctness what would have been so much to the advantage of his case, as he has done, e. g., in
otherwise
vv.
7-9
The
(ivs6|[X7jv,
or
dtvl^iQv,
,
advocated by some
of the older
modern
11,
Si
sion.
These interpretations
>'ield
many
is
by the other
constructions, but
it
hardly conceivable that the reader would be expected to supply mentally a word left so far behind. (J>uScz8. limit something supplied 3. Those which make Bta
.
(a)
oux
Ltft.).
igvaYxciaGiQ
xeptT[i,T]0iivai
(Ell.)
or
oux
(Frit, cited
.
by
.
This
is
%spix[L-i]Qf]M(xi already expressed, as is done making it limit ou8e by Mey., and is open to the same objections, (b) xepieTixiQQTj, Riick. According to this et al.; advocated by Hort. (WH. II app. p. 121).
.
rivoL-^v.ons^-q,
not the circumcision, being denied; li is adversative, and introduces the statement of the reason why Titus, though not compelled,
was nevertheless circumcised, viz., because of the false brethren. This If is perhaps the most improbable of all the proposed interpretations. the circumcision of Titus was carried through without Paul's consent, then how could he have said that it was not compelled ? if with his consent and, as he says, because of the false brethren, how could he say that he had not yielded to them for so much as an hour ? What was such consent but precisely ^ bxoiafii, the surrender which they demanded (cf. on Tfj uTroTayfj, v. ? And with what honesty could he have
maintained that he had pursued this course at Jerusalem, "that the truth of the gospel might continue with you," when in fact he had on
that occasion surrendered the very thing which was to him the key to the whole situation so far as concerned the relation of the Gentile to
the law and to Christ? Cf. 5^*. In fact, any view which assumes that Titus was circumcised involves the conclusion that Paul surrendered his case under compulsion or through wavering, and that in his present
argument he made a disingenuous and unsuccessful attempt to prove (c) The thought of (unsuccessful) presthat he did not surrender it. This view (set forth in the larger -rivaYx-dae-o. sure implied in ouSe print above), and well advocated by Ltft. pp. 105, 106, yields a clear and
.
consistent account of what took place, showing the Jerusalem apostles standing between the extremists on both sides, advising Paul to consent to the circumcision of Titus for the sake of peace, while Paul, see-
ing in such a yielding a surrender of vital principle to the false representatives of Christianity, persistently refused;
it
time for the insertion of the phrase, and for the characterisation of the men referred to as false brethren, etc., showing at the same time the
extent to which the Jerusalem apostles could, from Paul's point of view, be led astray, so as even to advocate a course dictated by regard
for those
who were
demand
a<-
all.
from without, men who had no This view alone brings this portion
82
of the
GALATIANS
paragraph into
line
he aims to show
If it
difl5cult to
language the thought, "this was urged," the most reasonable alternative
view
is
above).
From
is
proposed, and
if it
tributory,
otTiz^e?
it
way to a reason which was, after all, only conwould be the most probable interpretation of the passage.
Karacr/coTrrjaai
rrjv
TrapeicrrfKOov
eXevOepCav rj^oiv
of
"who sneaked in
tian
to
The Hberty
which
of course, the
from bondage to the law, which would have been surif the Gentile Christians had been compelled to be circumcised. That Cf. 4^- ^' ^^'^^, and esp. 5^-^- ". he calls it "our freedom" {cf. v/^a? at the end of v.^) shows that
rendered in principle
was
in the apostle's
mind
else that
Paul
is
for the
moment
whose
The Antioch
how
Jews was connected with that of the liberty of the Gentile Christians, both in fact and in the apostle's mind. Yet there is nothing in his narclosely the question of the
freedom
dom
of the Gentile
was
any-
less is it to
be assumed that
by
was
"that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" suggest that at this time the only question raised pertained to the
Gentiles,
and
this is further
n, 4
IlapeKjIpxotJ'-a' is
S3
a verb not
uncommon in later Greek, meaning literally (not, however, in Rom. 5") implyby Th.; and
esp. Luc. Asin. 15, e{ Xuxoq
xapsi(jiX6oi (Sief.).
xaxaaxoxiti),
of hostile intent, purpose to destroy (Grk. writers from Xenophon down, Lxx, here only in N. T.) is here nearly equivalent to "stealthily to destroy."
Tjv e^oyuez;
iv
The
preposition iv
its
object as
possess,
we
on the basis of whose work we have this freedom. See Th. iv, I 6c, and Acts 13^^ Rom. 324 59 and note on v.^^ below. Others (see Ell., e. g., h. I. and v.i^) take iv in the sense "in mystical union with," a meaning which the word sometimes has in Paul. But in view of the
the person
by reason
whom and
it is
becomes
it
mean "by
they
union with."
Xva
r)/xd<i
KaTaSovXwaovatv,
i.
"that
might
bring
us
into bondage,"
e.,
to
sessed freedom.
49. 10 42i_^i^
Undue
stress
must not be
{cf.
laid
on
rjfia<i
as
meaning
above),
on iXevOeplav
tj/jloov
yet
tile
its
obvious reference
is
Gen-
Christians exclusively.
descriptive
of these "false
out (Ap.
distinct
Zeit. pp.
and
different
from the
original constituents
of
the
spirit
and aims.
By
KaraaKOTrrjaaL and
tW
KaTaBovXaxrovcnv
men
S4
GALATIANS
munity in order to make it legalistic, and implies that previous to their coming non-legalistic views were, if not generallyheld, at least tolerated. As concerns the aposCJ. also on i^^. tle's reflection upon the character of these men and the unworthiness of their motive, some allowance must necessarily be made for the heat of controversy; but that fact does not seem to affect the legitimacy of the inferences from his statement as to the state of opinion in the Jewish church and of practice among Gentile Christians. These facts have an important bearing on the question of the relation of Paul's narrative in this chapter to that of Acts, chaps. 6, 7, 10, 11.
The
and the implication as to the condition of things before they came suggest that the representation of Acts that the Jerusalem church was in
into the church
its
men
on the acceptance of
improbable.
letter.
Gentiles as Christians,
least not in conflict
not in
itself
It is at
On
T^MT
198 and
cf.
Lk. 14"
5.
Rom.
3*.
oh
ovBe
7r/9o?
wpau
whom
not for
an hour did we yield by way of the subjection (demanded)." Though the request that Paul and those with him should yield was made not by, but because of, the false brethren, he clearly saw that to grant the request would be in effect to surrender
to the latter.
responding
v7rora<yrj is
Hence the dative here instead of Sta oik, corBia Tov^i \l/evBaB\(j)Ov<;. The article before restrictive, showing that the word is used not simto
The phrase
is
therefore epexe-
it
had taken
place,
cludes
any interpretation which supposes that Paul meant simply to deny that he yielded obediently, i. e., to a recognised
is
n, 4-5
maintained by those
85
who
For
this
article.
On irpbq Qpav, meaning "for a short time," see 2 Cor. 7^ i Thes. 2" Phm.i^ where, as in the present passage, wpa is not a definite measure of time, a twelfth of a day, but merely a (relatively) short time; in the cases cited, some days or weeks; in the present passage
rather, as
we should say
iQis 26"' ".
in English,
instant."
C/.,
word, Mt.
Olq ouSe xpbq wpav. The reading at this point has been the subject of
ini
Apos-
curs. I.
pp. 36 f., Sief. Com. ad loc, and Zahn Com. ad loc. and ExThe principal evidence may be summarised as follows:
oI<;
ouSe)
D* d e plur. codd.
Victorin.
ap. Hier.
al.
Ambrst. Pelag.
and
(accg. to Sief.)
hoc esse
Primaon 2
(XI
209,
quoted by Klostermann,
p. 83
''
cf.
Hummer, Com.
xpbg wpav:
^sABCD""" FGKLP,
^t,,
g Vg. Syr. (psh. hard.) Boh. Arm. Aeth. codd. gr. ap. Hieron,; also Bas. Epiph. Euthal. Thdrt. Damas. Aug. Ambr. Hier.
first
reading.
Tdf Treg.
.
shows clearly that the difficulty of the latter reading was early felt, and that, for whatever reason, a syntactically easier text was current
among
the Latins.
The evidence
against
oI<;
ouSe,
however,
is
not
overcome the strong preponderance in its favour, or the improbability that any one would have introduced the anacoluthic olq. But since the reading ol.; without ouli is very weakly attested it remains to accept the reading which has both o\q and ouSI.
sufficient to
Iva
rj
tt/^o?
t'/^a?.
"that
The clause states the purpose of his refusing to yield. To make it a statement of the purpose of the yielding as Zahn does, omitting oh
the truth of the gospel might continue with you."
ovCe
is,
rr}
86
truth of the gospel that
GALATIANS
might abide legalists and It is also to convert a paragraph which did as they required. is put forth as an evidence that he had always maintained his independence of men into a weak apology for having conceded the authority of the Twelve. The term evayyeXcov evidently
with the Gentiles, he yielded to the demand of the
has here the same sense as in
those vv., and note
v.
2
men
and
in i^
{cf.
the notes on
genitive
in,
is
word
aXrjOeia here).
is
The
and so belonging to, the gospel. CJ. 17 twv vofxwv aXTJ^e^a], Papyri in The effect of Brit. Mus. II p. 280, cited by M. and M. Voc. the triumph of the view of Paul's opponents would have been to rob the Gentiles of the truth of the gospel, leaving them a
possessive genitive, the truth
See
i^.
The verb
it,
BLa/xeLvy
i.
implies
e.,
the
judaisers,
whom
he refers under
vfjLd<;.
sons in
UpSq meaning properly "towards" and then "with," usually of percompany and communication with others (i Thes. 3* 2 Thes. 2
*) is
txeTd:
an
The
idea of possession
but
of.
is
suggested
spoken
is
b'^aq
may
whom
he
writing, in
which case
as
on behalf of whom Paul then took his stand is so natural, even though historically the Galatians only later participated in the benefit
would be hazardous to lay any great weight on this The most that can safely be said is that Sta^xefvn -izphq u[j.aq receives its most obvious interpretation if the Galatians are supposed to have been already in possesof his action, that
it
word
See Introduction, p.
xlii.
"And from
those
who were
cf.
accounted to be something."
On
v.
2.
this
is left
unexis
when
the thought
n,
5,
87
less
resumed after the parenthesis ottolol, etc. The apostle doubthad in mind when he began the sentence irapeXa^ov ovSev The sentence seems {cf. 1^2) or some equivalent expression.
not adversative, but continuative; to the statement that when the pillar apostles took up, in a sense, the cause of the false
brethren, he did not for a
moment
ovBev
jjlol
hia^epei
ottoIol^ a
i
what kind"
(cf.
Thes. i^
Cor.
here evidently
had by reason
flesh, in
the case of James as his brother, in and John as his personal followers. This fact of their past history was undoubtedly appealed to by the opponents of Paul as giving them standing and authority wholly
superior to
claim.
lo^
Paul
much
do
Apostleship rests on a
open to him equally with them. The whole parenthetical sentence, though introduced without a conjunction, serves as a justification of the depreciation of the apostles which he had
begun to express in the preceding clause or perhaps more exactly as an answer in advance to the thought which the apostle
when completed,
you received nothing from them, that is certainly to your disadvantage; were they not personal companions of Jesus, the original and authoritative bearers of the gospel? What valid commission or message can you have except as you derived it from them ?
viz.:
But
if
With a verb of past time %oxi (enclitic) may mean (a) "ever," "at any time"; (b) "at some time," "once," "formerly"; (c) "ever," with intensive force, like the Latin cunque, and the English "ever" in "who-
SS
ever," "whatever."
GALATIANS
meaning is that which is preferred in But this use is unusual in classical Greek, and has no example in N. T. The second meaning, 'on the other hand, is frequent in N. T., especially in Paul (chap. i". Rom. 79, etc.), and is appropriate in this connection, directing the
last
The
RV." whatsoever
they were."
thought to a particular (undefined but easily understood) period of There can therefore be no doubt that
the meaning here intended.
The first meaning is not imposappropriate because suggesting various possible past periods or points of time, instead of the one, Jesus' lifetime, which gives
sible,
but
less
The above
interpretation of xoxe
and substantially
of the sentence
is
adopted by Wies. Hilg. Ltft. and many others from the Latin Vg. down. Win. and Lip., though taking xoxe in the sense of cunque, by
life on earth reach substantially the same interpretation of the clause. Ell. Sief., et al., take xoxe in the sense of amque, and understand the clause to refer to the esteem in
of; whatwhatever prestige, standing, they had in Jerusalem at this time. Sief. supplies as subject for 8cac{)^pet the thought "to obtain authorisation from them"; making the sentence mean: " whatever their standing in Jerusalem, it is of no consequence to me
v/hich these
men were
i.
e.,
6xoIo{ xoxe
^aav
{cf.
Cor. 3")
itself is
a subject unnecessary.
ov \afjL^dvL
man." To accept the personHterally fac^of one is to base one's judgment and action on external and irrelevant considerations. Cf. Mt. 22I6 Mk. 1214 Lk. 2021. Such, in the judgment of Paul, were mere natural kinship with Jesus, such as James had, or personal companionship with him during
the person of
his earthly
life,
Cf. 2 Cor.
5^2^
where
Paul uses iv
things.
Trpoa-coTro)
these
men
of
As between 6e6<; and b Bed? external evidence alone is indecisive. i<AP 3S: 88, 103, 122,* 442, 463, 1912, Chrys. al. insert the article.
II,
89
Dam. omit it. Sheer accident on one side as on the other. At first sight intrinsic probability seems to make for the genuineness of the article, since the N. T. writers, and Paul in particular, rarely use ee6<; Yet the use of Qeoq without the article, as subject without the article. because employed with qualitative force with emphasis upon the divine attributes, especially in contrast with man, is an established usage of which there are numerous examples in Paul (see i Thes. i 2< i Cor. 2^ 3' ") and a few in the nominative (i Thes. 2* Gal. 6' 2 Cor. 51'). Inasmuch, therefore, as there is in this passage just such a contrast, it would be in accordance with Pauline usage to omit the article, and the balance of intrinsic probability is apparently on this side. Transcriptional probability is also in its favour, since the scribe would be more likely to convert the unusual 0e6<; into 6 6e6<; than the reverse.
al.
BCDFGKL
pier.
Eus. Thdrt.
would be as
likely to operate
ifJLol
yap
01
"for to
me
the
men
of
what he began
now
on him no burden
or imparted nothing to
him
in addition to
knew.
justificatory, introducing
a statement which
justifies the
and the new clause introduced by yap putting form the thought already partly expressed in cltto
he roiv BoKovvTcov.
The
latter is simpler
and
more probable.
The
uses of the verb xpoaavaTfOe^xat (Mid.) clearly attested outside
Boeckh.C./.G. 2782.
17. ii6<;
(2) "
i.
"To offer or dedicate beside": To confer with " Gal. i>6 (5.D.); Diod. Sic.
:
Luc.
J up.
Trag.
(3)
"To
2.1^
(4)
self in addition,
Mem.
"To
(5)
(equiv. to xpocjt(0tq(xi)
"To
(6)
before": Chrys.,
et al.;
22and
xp6<; in
"To
per-
i. e.,
what
in
RV. might
90
haps represent either
ing
is
GALATIANS
(4), (5), (6),
The
first
applied only
meanby
chiefly
it
very
difficult,
taking the
word
no
verb as in i^^ and interprets the sentence as meaning, "for they laid
nothing before me for decision, they did not make me their judge." This Zahn interprets as an explanation and justification of ouSiv [xot Bcaqjipei, in that it gives a reason why he did not regard their high
standing as he might have been tempted to do
as judge of their affairs.
acted as his
he had been acting on the contrary, they judges and pronounced favourable judgment on him. The
if
interpretation
is
point of impossibility.
fdip o\, etc.
TGJv
in etxol
Paul said the opposite of what he set out to say in dxb SI SoxouvTtov, or else that, having begun in the latter phrase to say
men
of esteem
makes
is
which
it is
to disprove.
The
third sense
rendered impossible for the present passage by the presence of i[i.oL "To lay no additional burden on themselves for me" is without meaning in this connection.
The
upon
from the
fact that
(i-vazl%e\x<xi is
found in the
active sense (Xen. Cyr. 8.5*), as well as in the reflexive that the com-
pound
sense,
xpoaavaT(9e;xat
may
The
fifth
though adopted by
many
interpreters, ancient
and modem,
seems least defensible, being neither attested by any clear instance (unless Chrysostom's adoption of it constitutes such an instance) nor
based on attested use of
dvaTtOTQtJLt.
where renders it, like the fourth, conjectural, but not impossible, in view of the difficulty of all the well-attested senses. Our choice of interpretations must lie between the fourth, advocated by Sief. (who
also cites for
sixth.
is
it
Both
But the
sixth
is,
on
II,
6-7
91
be preferred: it is more consonant -^ith the thought of dxb 5e twv Soxouvtwv, in which the apostle apparently began to say what he here expresses in a different syntactical form, and with
the whole, slightly to
Xa^^avec, which seem to have been written, as the words xpocwxov pointed out above, in anticipation of these words.
. . .
7.
Tr)?
aWa
Toi'vavTiov ISovre^
/ca6oi<;
on
ireTTiaTev/jiaL to
evayyeXtov
aKpo^vaTLa<;
Herpo^
rr}? Treptro/XT)?,
trary
of the fact
negatively stated in
ydp,
etc.
The
about to be
led
what they had learned and so that they had in some sense changed their minds. There is an obvious relation between the words of this v. and v. 2. But whether the decision of the
them
to take this step,
Jerusalem apostles to recognise Paul's right of leadership in the Gentile field was based on his statement of the content of his
gospel (v. 2), or on his story of
how he
received
spirit
on the
manifested, or on
last supposition is
all
these combined,
is
The
of the
the persons to
whom
work.
It
is it
is
Nor
wholly clear precisely to what extent they had changed their minds.
*
terpretation of V.
Titus on grounds of
advocated at that point is correct, they had urged the circumcision of expediency rather than of principle. They can not therefore have stood
matter of intrinsic necessity. But whether in asking for the circumcision of Titus for the sake of the legalists, they had also asked that for like reasons Paul should circumcise all his Gentile converts, does not clearly appear. Consistency would have required that they should do so, since the circumcision of Titus could have had little significance if it were not to be regarded as a precedent. But it
for the circumcision of Gentile Christians in general as a
is
not certain that they were as intent upon logical consistency as upon securing a peaceful
92
GALATIANS
by Paul;
for it
was
of fellowship.
Paul says, led them to give to him and to Barnabas hands At the same time it is evident that Paul, con-
tending for the right to preach this one gospel to the Gentiles
without demanding that they should accept circumcision, and so to make it in content also a gospel of uncircumcision, expected that Peter also would preach
it
to the circumcised
Jews
Thus even
difference
in content there was an important and far-reaching between the gospel that Paul preached and that
difference, in fact,
between a
legalistic
and a
non-legalistic gospel.
But even
this difference, it is
im-
portant to note, sprang from a fundamental identity of printhat the one message of salvation is to be offered men, as they are, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. Whether this principle was clearly recognised by the Jerusalem
ciple, viz.,
to
apostles
plicit
is
it
was
for
5^ i Cor. y^^-^^.
Thus
for
him
mutual
tian
tolerance.
And
he contended as
in the Chris-
essential.
For differences
there
and practice
community
for intolerance of
such differences.
That
on the part
of those
of those
who
who
preached,
and
is
{q. v.).
But
there
is
noth-
this
The
genitives
Tfjq
axpoguaTfai;
and
Tfjq
iceptTOix^q
II,
7-^
93
'z[n][iiwiq.
equivalent to rot? Iv ixpo^uGxlq: (in uncircumcision) and Tot<; xeptTSBoth nouns are used by Cf. vv. 9 and i Cor. 7' Rom. 4'.
dxpo^ucjTta
metonymy,
signifying,
first,
" membrum virile," then " uncircumcision," then " uncircumcised person "
The word on the form of the word, see Th. and M. and M. Voc. s. v. no doubt, to the content of the message !' " 2 and detached note on eiiaYriXtov, p. 422), by the addition {cf. on of the genitives denoting to whom the message is to be presented acquires a secondary reference to the work of presenting it.
eiaffi'kiov, referring primarily,
(WM.
For the construction of eOaYyiXtov with izeTzlazeu^iai, see W. XXXII 5 gi' i Tim. i". The p. 287), Butt., p. 190, and Rom. 3* i Cor.
and appropriately
BMT
by the
its
its
existing result.
74.
by the
necessitated
BMT 353.
and the following Paul speaks only of himself (as and Peter, omitting mention of Barnabas on the one side and of James and John on the other, doubtless reflects the fact that Paul was recognised as the leader of the work among the Gentiles, and Peter as the leader, not indeed of the Jemsh Christian church, but
That
in this verse
')
also in vv.^-
of the missionary
work
When
ence
is
Paul,
and James
named
first
among
8. o
yap
evepyr}(7a<;
i/xol
Tre/otro/XT}? iv-
qpyrjaev koX
ek ra
"for he
who wrought
for
me
This paren^,
thetical V. is
being
probably of Paul's
firms
their
conclusion.
apostleship
of his
and
its
own claim
to apostleship
by appeal
to his
own
equal and
like experience of
God.
Whether the appeal is to the inner experience of each by which they were endowed for their work, or to the known results, in the way of converts, etc., of his work and Peter's, depends upon the precise
sense in which Paul used the words ivepy-qaaq
of evepY&i in i Cor, i2' ",
and
ev/jpynaev.
The usage
where
it
refers to the
work
of the Spirit of
94
God
first
GALATIANS
in
men,
fitting
view.
But
specifically " to
and endowing each for his own work, suggests tlic where in the second instance IvepYslv means effect, to produce results," shows that Paul might easily
Phil. 2",
it
use the word here with reference to the divine activity in accomplishing
results
(see
more distinctly by which the results were accomplished. The argument on this view would be similar to that of i Cor. 9*, but also wholly appropriate to the present connection, and more forcible than a reference to the inner experience of Peter and himself, which would be known only to each of them respectively. In b ydp evepYTjaaq, as in some other passages, Paul refers to God by a descriptive epithet without the insertion of the word Qe6q. See i. and notes; Col. 310. To understand b evepYT]aa<; of Christ rather than God, would not be consistent with Paul's usual method of expression concerning the apostleship. Save where as in Gal. i the two ideas coalesce in the representation of God and Christ as immediate source, it is his habit to speak of God as its source and Christ as the agent or mediator of it (Rom. i 15" i Cor. is'o Eph. 3*. ' Gal. i^^; cf. also on
it
Rom.
through himself and Peter, perhaps preferring 15^8) because it is intransitive and because
to xaTepY(4!;o^at
2^^).
a dative of advantage, not governed by Iv in composition, hegyy]a(xq not being a verb compounded with ev, but deis
The
dative JJizpiD
ev
be operative, to work."
'AicoaToTvTQ,
Rom.
i^ i
Cor.
9'; it is
otherwise in classical Greek and the Lxx) refers specifically to the ofuce
and work
gives the
of
i*.
The omission
of the article
word qualitative
The
. e.,
mere reference but purpose or result, "for or unto the creation of," "so as to make him an apostle." Tf)<;'n:epiTOixfi<;ishere, as in v. ^ by metonymy for "the circumcised." dq la eOvin is manifestly a condensed expression equivalent to zlq
dtTCocToX-fjv
like,
negligence.
That
dTCOJToXTjv is
rrjv
%a/?ii/
rrjv
SoOeladv
/lot, 'ldfCco/3o<;
fcal
Kal
Bapvd^a
KOivwvLa^^
''and
when,
say,
they per-
been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were accounted to be pillars, gave to me and to Barnabas right hands of fellowship." These
ceived
the grace
that had
II,
8-9
v.'^,
95
virtually repeating tSoWe?
of
and completing what was there begun. It is an overrefinement to attempt to discover a marked difference between IBovre^ and yvopre^;. The "grace that was
given to
me"
is
God
word %V^^j
(v.^),
see i'
him of the gospel to the uncircumcised but not necessarily excluding that manifested in the results which he had been able to accomplish. Cf. Rom. i'^,
cially the entrusting to
Bl
ov
[sc.
X^P^^
'^^^^
airocrrok-qv
i
eh
See also
Cor. 3^ 15^^
Eph.
32-
7,
47^
On
the question
how
to recognise that
God had
on
v.
'.
came The
giving of right hands is in token of a mutual compact, while KOLvwvLa^ defines that compact as one of partnership. See
more
fully
below in
fine print.
The
placing of the
name
of
James
first is
certain prominence of
James
as in
mentioned in vv.
e.,
''
',
as the leader in
above that of Peter. Thus while Peter some sense the apostle of the circumcision, missionary work among the Jews, James was
apparently the
man
more
practical sense.
on vv.
'''
The
KTjtpae;,
of
it
before
Tdtxojpoq
(DFG
g Vg. Syr.
i^s
*,
and
is
a Western corruption.
In vv.^-
hand, Ilixgoq and n^tpo) are undoubtedly the correct readings. The custom of giving the hand as a pledge of friendship or agreement
existed both among the Hebrews and the Greeks, though probably derived by the Hebrews from some outside source. Cf. the passages cited by Ltft., indicating its existence among the Persians (Corn. Nep.
Da^
c.
XI
151');
and showing
its
preva-
lence
the Parthians and other adjacent peoples (Jos. A^it. 1S.328 (9')); and notice in Gen. 242. ' 25" 3145-49 3310. n other methods of con-
among
The Hebrew
expresi
Chr.
292* 2
Chr. 308
Lam. 5^
implying submission.
In Greek writers
96
pledges received or given
GALATIANS
used with various verbs, such as Xatx^civw, e^piXXw,
:
5(5w'^t, in
speaking of
Horn.
//.
VI 233
-/sipSLq t
dXX-fjXtov Xa^iir]\i.
TCiaTtv.
Od. I 121
xetp'
^e
Se^cTepTjv.
Se^idcv.
Xen. An. 1. 6: Se^tav eXagov %a\ ISwxa. 2. 5', Be^taq SeSotx^vaq. In a papyrus of the second century a. d. the expression (xtj (puX(^aa[t]v aou i^v Se^cdcv, "not to keep your pledge" (Grenfell, Hunt, and Hogarth, Fayww Towns and their Papyri, 124"), In the Jewish indicates that Ss^ti: had acquired the meaning "pledge." Greek writings BiSovat Ss^tav (or Se^ia<;) is a token of a friendly compact. See I Mac. 6'* ii"- ' " 13" 2 Mac. ii^' i2'i 13"; Jos. Ant. 18. 328 (9'), 20. 62 (32). In none of these cases does the giving of the hand indicate submission, but a pledge of friendship, in most cases from the Notice esp. the use of Bouvat and Xa^elv superior power to the inferior. but also in 2 Mac. 13", where in the in I Mac. ii 13'" 2 Mac. 12^^case of a mutual compact the same person both gives and receives Se^tdtv.
Tr. 1181: e'n^aXXe x^tpa
i'',
which the giving of the right hands expressed, and to which the givers pledged themselves. It thus excludes the idea of surrender or submission which the phrase "to give the hand" without qualification (i Chr. 292^) might suggest, or that of The superiority which usually accompanies its use in i and 2 Mac. genitive can hardly be defined grammatically more exactly than as a
(c/.
WM.
pp. 235/.
ol
SoxoOvxe? aruXot elvat, see note on " pillars " as a designation of those upon
On
ooxoOvTsq, v.
*.
The term
whom
responsibility rests, is
found in
57:
classical,
Thus
in Eur. Iph. T.
^sch. Ag. 898: aTuXov icoS-^ptj, tiovoyevei; rixvov icaTpt. Cf. exx. from Rabbinic writings in Schottgen, Ilorae Hebraicae, ad loc, and for early Christian writers, see
OTuXoc Yotp ocxtov xatBiq e(aiv
Clem. Rom.
of
5*, ol ^jL^ytaToi
whom
Xva
rjfjieU
ek ra eOvq^ avrol
the circumcised."
is
Be
ek
rrjv
irepLTOfjLrjv'
"that
we
among
they
among
evayyekLaoyfjLeOa
to be
suppHed in the
part,
and a
cor-
responding predicate for avroL in the second part. omission of the verb after tm, see Th. Iva II 4 c, and
4^^ I
On
cf.
the
Rom.
Cor.
i^^ 2
Cor. 8^^
The
agreement
BMT
J7/xt9,
kolvcoulu^. See impHed in Sefm? eSoKav 217 (b) and cf. John 9^2. avroL stands in antithesis to and is thus shghtly emphatic, but not properly intensive.
U; 9
See Butt. p. 107.
97
of v. ^ marks the commemorable occasion, the significance of which Hes not in that the apostles approved him, which of itself might signify dependence on them instead of the independence on which he has been insisting ever since his
plete victory of the apostle
strong afiirmation of
it
in i"-
^^,
first
Was
racial?
Was
it
as their distinctive
aim
whom
home
Or were the Gentiles in any and every land or city assigned to Paul and Barnabas and the Jews in the same land and city to Peter, James, and John? The use of the terms eOvT] and Tre/otTO/A?), which designate the people rather than the
lands?
territory,
seems at
first
basis
The it was this in a sense. was a difference between Jews and Gentiles as peoples, not between the lands in which they lived. Unquestionably, too, the mission of Paul and Barnabas was chiefly a mission to and for the Gentiles, and that of the others Yet on the other hand it must be observed to and for the Jews.
racial, division.
And no doubt
rested
on which
it
that Paul has used not a simple dative or Trpo? with the accusative,
but
et?,
and
that, despite
constructions severally,
some apparent or even a few between these whether we assume here an omitted
or Kripvaacofiev^
is
eXOco/jLev, evwyyeXtaco/jLeOa^
with a good
The
dative
and
/crjpva-.
of
a dative of in-
tt/oo?
with words
"among"
(i.
e.,
to
and
98
in such special idioms
GALATIANS
as et? eavrov eKOelv)^
but only
v.ath.
plurals or collectives.
The
than
division,
though on a basis
of
(i^^ 2^)
Paul has spoken unambiguously of the Gentiles as those among {ev) whom he preached the gospel, and that he has nowhere in
this epistle or elsewhere
Thes.
2^,
The whole
agreement was that Paul and Barnabas were to preach the gosOn pel in Gentile lands, the other apostles in Jewish lands.
the question whether the division of territory involved a differ-
v.
\
i
Cor. 3^
Cor. II'
Rom. i"
319 71
Acts
8^ io.
The
dative
is
the
most
For
izpiq
zuix'{-^e\CC,o[i(xi,
never after
1
i^''^-
Thes.
i4i''-
Cor.
Rom.
is
I'"'
" 15"'
".
For dq
when
the
noun
personal, but
cf. 2
Cor. 10")
Mk. i"
26"
131"
Lk,
24^' i
Thes.
2' (after
X7)p6aaa))
22=1
(after iizoa-ziXkoi
and
l^czxoa-
7" Acts
i8 (after xopsjoixat).
The usage
3I6),
Cor.
after
ii'
Col. I"
Tim.
XTfjpuaati)
dq (Mk. i' Lk. 4**), leaves no room for doubt that e[<; after means "among" rather than "unto." On i Thes. 2', see Bornemann ad loc. and on Mk. 13' Lk. 24<', see WM. p. 267. Similar
reasoning based on the use of the dative after
I z^a-^-^zkl'Qi'^ai
(chap. 4^'
Cor.
i5>'
Cor. 11'
Rom.
i'^)
and the employment of the phrase (ii") and of suayy- dq (2 Cor, io^; on
a similar conclusion respecting dq
like xopsuotxat, etc., Jn. 7",
ocB(5:(jy.[v
Pet. i, see
WM.
p. 267) leads to
dq
TT)v
lobq
be addressed
Jesus
is
among
{dq)
whom
sup-
posed to be going.
If in
Acts i8
e(<j
mean-
II,
9-10
99
ing "unto" (denoting address rather than location), yet the total evidence leaves no room for doubt that dq uniformly, or all but uniformly,
retains its local sense after all the verbs here under consideration.
"provided only
that
we
Butt. p. 241.
verb might be supplied before this clause. See But it is better in the absence of a verb to
clause,
GMT
332,
make
of the
agreement
it
itself.
fJLovov limits
cates that
On
appar-
5"^
and
To
the general
field
own
territory, there is
this
i.
e.,
among
Sief.
ad loc).
The
/JLvrjfiovevcofJLev,
denoting continued
to be
action
(BMT
referred to is one
distiactly in
a single instance) of
it
in the future.
common
is
mind a practice (not The former as the more in the dependent moods
"which very thing I
somewhat
On
the strengthening of o
by
The verb
cnrovBd^Q) in N. T. signi-
make
diligent effort" to
do a thing
Thes.
cf.
2^^ of
tions);
Jth. 131'
Appar-
ently, therefore, it
lOO
GALATIANS
to
an
effort in
ii')
{cf.
Acts
number
of eaTrovSacra.
reference to an effort
is
on behalf
its
impossible
in view of the
of eairovhaaa, to
which also
singular
number adds
further force.
all
bas was with Paul at the time, the plural number (notice the
number
There
of
/JLvrjfjLovevco/jiev)
eairovha^oixev
(it
iroLelv or eTroLovfiev.
is
apparently a slight hint in the present tense of a previous remembrance of the poor on the
fiV7)fiovVQ)/jLep of
should
is
precisely
viz.,
that he
was
in disagreement
with the Twelve, they right and he wrong, and shows that,
though they at
disagreed with
him
as to
ent to do, in the end they cordially admitted that he was right.
f.
all
human
authority
(2"-^^).
drawn from
Peter,
is attracted by the spectacle of Jewand Gentile Christians living together in harmony in one community, joins himself for the time to this community and, following the practice of the Jews of the church, eats with the Gentile members. Presently, however, there appeared at An-
ish
n,
tioch certain
lo,
11-14
loi
Jerusalem as the repre-
sentatives of James.
These men, doubtless contending that Peter's conduct in eating with the Gentiles was not only not required by the Jerusalem agreement, but was in fact contrary
to
it,
since
it
brought such pressure to bear upon Peter that he gradually discontinued his social fellowship with the Gentile Christians.
So
influential
was
this
all
the
Jewish members of the church ceased to eat with their Gentile fellow-Christians, and as a result of this even Barnabas, who
at Jerusalem
had with Paul championed the freedom of the Thus the church was divided, socially at least, into two, and by this fact pressure was brought upon the Gentiles to take up the observance of
Gentiles, also followed Peter's example.
the Jewish law of foods, since so only could the unity of the
At this point Paul, perhaps returning from an absence from Antioch, for it is difficult to suppose that matters would have reached this pass while he was present, or
church be restored.
possibly delaying action so long as the question pertained to
when
it
became
Jewish law
at
this point, at
any
rate,
own
he recognised that the law was not binding even upon Jewish Christians, and that it was therefore unjustifiable and hypocritical for
to endeavour to bring
law.
By
this incident
was
also re-
leased from the obhgation to keep the law, as well as the Gentile;
and,
by
among
was
raised.
The essentially
this way been brought to Hght, Paul, so from recognising the authority of Peter as the representa-
I02
GALATIANS
resisted him openly, and following out the logic not of that to which he had consented at Jerusalem, viz., the continuance of legal practices by the Jewish Christians, but of that for which he had contended, viz., the freedom of the Gentiles from obligation to conform to the statutes of the law, boldly claimed that even Jewish Christians were not under law, and must not
obey
its
statutes
of
ef-
way
could he more
have affirmed
authority.
his
human
to
to the
face,
before
James he was
he
gradually
circumcised.
drew back
and
separated
fearing
the
rest
of the Jews also, so that even Barnabas was carried along with
their hypocrisy.
when I saw
pursuing a
to the truth
of the gospel,
I said
Cephas in
a Jew,
livest
after the
manner
of the Gentiles
and not
Jews, how
is it that
Jewish manner?
11.
et?
avTM
to Antioch, I resisted
between the right hands of fellowship (v. 9) and Paul's resistance of Peter at Antioch suggests the translation of he by "but." But the paragraph is simply continuative of the argument begun in i", and extending to and through this paragraph. By one more event in which he
antithesis
demned."
The
came into contact with the Jerusalem leaders he enforces his argument that he had never admitted their authority over him, but had acted with the consciousness of having independent
guidance for his conduct.
The Antioch here r,eferred to is unquestionably not the Pisidian Antioch, but the more famous Syrian city, which is regularly spoken
of simply as Antioch, without further title to designate
it.
See Acts
II,
I- I
103
II"
it
etfreq.
occurred immediately upon Peter's arrival; for the following verses show that in fact a considerable series of events must have elapsed
before Paul took his stand against Peter.
whole incident, see Introd. pp. 1 /. The phrase xczTa xpdawxov conveys in
tility,
itself
no implication
of hos-
but only of "face to face" encounter (Acts 25I6 2 Cor. iqi). dvTeaTTjv reflects the fact that to Paul Peter seemed to have made
the initiative aggression.
resistance
(lit.
Acts 13'
For while the verb is used both of passive "to stand against") and active counter opposition {cf. Tim. 38), yet it usually or invariably implies an initiative
This was furnished in the
by the conduct
which though not necessarily an attack on the position which Paul was
of Peter,
maintaining at Antioch.
classical writers,
Of the various senses in which the verb xaTaYivtoaxo) is used by two only can be considered here: (a) "to accuse," (b)
Of these the latter is evidently much more appropriate which Paul gives the reason for resisting Peter. The participle is predicative, and best taken as forming with ^v a pluperfect of existing state i^MT 90, 91, 430; Gal. 4' Mt. 9" 26" Mk. i
" to condemn."
in a clause in
Lk.
i^).
It
comes to practically the same thing to take xaxeYvcoajJ-lvoc; meaning "guilty" (Sief. cites Hero-
952; Clem.
15S e^iyx^iv exeipaxo eJxoxoc; xaTeyvwaixivTQV, Luc. De salt. Hom. 17"; with which compare also, as illustrating tho
N. T., Acts
8^ Gal.
i" Eph.
2^2
43
BMr
429).
is
by whom he had
necessary defiis
been condemned
nitely to supply
is it
it
in thought.
that Peter's
condemned him. Notice the following clause introduced by Yi^P- The perfect is used with similar implication in Rom. 14=' Jn. 31*; Jos. Bell. 2.135 (8), cited by Ltft. To supply "by the Gentile Christians in Antioch" is to add to the text what is neither sugFor since the purpose of gested by the context nor appropriate to it. the apostle in narrating this event is still to show his own independence of the other apostles, a condemnation of Peter's action by the Gentile Christians in Antioch is an irrelevant detail, and especially so as the
own
action
12.
TT/ao
/.Lera roiv
eOvoiv
avv^adiev.
"For before
Gentiles."
certain
this
with the
sentence
Not
alone but
the whole
(v.^^)
why
I04
and so the proof
{'yap)
GALATIANS
of Kareyvcoa-fievo^;.
iOvcov refers, of
Rom.
11^
to sharing with
and in v.^^ below, and (rvvrjadiev^ without doubt, them in their ordinary meals, as in Lk. 152 Acts The imperfect tense imphes that he did this, not on a single
15^^ 16^,
The
significance of the
lia-
not
The
There
it
it
was
involves the
obligation of the Jewish Christian to keep the law, and particularly in the
matter of food.
By
with
ex-
had been
and who had doubtless exercised a like freedom in respect to foods, Peter went beyond anything which the action at Jerusalem directly called for, and in effect declared the Jew also, as well as the Gentile, to be free from the law. It does not indeed follow that he w^ould have been prepared to apply the principle consistently to other prescriptions of the law, and to
afhrm,
e. g.,
children.
of the
law was binding upon Gentile or Jew was now brought light, and on this question Peter by his conduct
can scarcely have been Peter's conduct that
first
Yet
it
raised
the question.
The custom
fell
when he came
It
is
to
Antioch and
in Avith
it
because
it
the Jewish feeling respecting Jews eating with Gentiles, see Jubil. 22" Tob.
Esth.
Lxx
chap. 28 Jth.
II'.
i2i'^-
Mac.
Ant. 4.137
(6);
cited
by Bous.
Rel.
d. Jud.*, p. 192;
Acts 10"
11,
12
I05
it
he had already been in the habit of eating with Gentiles in Judea, he would have been deterred from continuing to do so in Antioch by the arrival of the messengers from
or that
if
James.
The Antioch
in Christ
practice
was
clearly
an expression of the
Jesus" which Paul advocated, but in all probability a new expression, developed since the conference at
'freedom
Jerusalem
(vv.i-^).
full
It
which the
was recog-
gained courage to break over their scruples as Jews, and eat with
their Gentile brothers in the church.
Nor
is
there
any
special
reason to think that Paul would have pressed the matter at the
beginning.
tiles,
Concerning, as
it
but the adherence of the Jews to their own ancestral custom enforced by O. T. statute, in consistency with his principles (i
Cor.
7^^^-)
but
would probably seem to him not a matter to be pressed, the gradual enhghtenment of the Jewish Christians themselves. It is difficult to see, moreover, how, if the Jewish
it
left to
Christians in Antioch
at Jerusalem
Certainly
it
would
difficult
for
the
and
of the representa-
come
as
it
to
at Antioch had seem to Peter that inasmuch affected not simply the Gentiles, but also the Jewish
James.
this
new departure
easily
Christians,
Io6
GALATIANS
on.
there
mind
as to
whether the
divi-
him the Jews, or Jewish lands. See on 2^. Even if he had come expecting to disapprove what he found, it would be by no means uncharacteristic of him that, captivated with the picture of
sion of the field agreed to at Jerusalem assigned to
Christian unity which he saw, he should, instead of reproving, have himself adopted the new custom. And if in turn news of this state of affairs, including Peter's unexpected conduct, reached Jerusalem, this would furnish natural occasion for the
visit of the representatives of
the
more extreme
most
seri-
And
this in
situation at Antioch
which the Jerusalem conference issued. A new aspect of the question which underlay the discussion at Jerusalem had now come to the front and raised a question concerning which precisely opposite decisions
might
easily
seem to
different persons
The brethren
at
them
on equal terms, and, in the virtual declaration of the nonessentiahty of circumcision, ground for the inference that the O. T. statutes were no longer binding, and ought not to be observed to the detriment of the unity of the Christian community.
The Jerusalem
with equal sincerity maintain that they had never expressed or intimated the belief that the Jews could disregard the statutes
of the law,
tacit
II,
12
I07
still
decision
in
was
from the Jerusalem compromise and Peter's wavering between the two interpretations that created the Antioch situation.
Whether dicb 'laxw^ou limits 'zt.v&q or eXSelv it is impossible to determine with certainty. The fact that the subject of an infinitive somewhat more frequently precedes it than follows it (see Votaw, Inf. in Bib. Gr. p. 58; cf. Mt. 6* Lk. 22"; contra Lk. 2=1 Gal. 3^) slightly favours explaining the position of xtvA? as due to the desire to bring it into connection with <i%h 'laxti^ou. Yet the rarity of any limitation of an indefinite pronoun by any phrase except a partitive one is against this In either case the mention of the personal name, James, construction. the same, of course, who is named in v. " and in i^', implies that the persons spoken of were sent by him or in some sense represented him. That they did not belong to those whom in v.* Paul calls "false brethren" is probable not only from the fact that Paul does not so describe them, but designates them as representing James, who was of the mediating party, but also from the fact, brought out above, that these
messengers of James to Antioch probably contended not for obedience
to the Jewish
for the
T0V9
The by
the
word "gradually."
For a possible
fear of
whom
Jewish Christians
domination
Io8
GALATIANS
both his own instability and the extent to which the legaHstic
party had developed and acquired influence in the Jerusalem
In view of
this
by no means
Cf.
there described
on
i^^.
(understood by Origen
(i^se)
to refer
39, 442,
to James, eX06vTO(;
by J<BD*FG
must be
Introd. p. 224,
and App.
p. 121.
ACD^ et cEHKLP,
risptTopiiQ is
the great
The reading ^X6ov is supported by body of later manuscripts and the ancient
circumcised"
sion here
i. e.,
but
and
its
omis-
The
not of existence but of standing and character (cf. Th. Ix, II 7, though the characterisation of the use is not quite broad enough), and the phrase means simply "the circumcised," "the Jews." This rather
(Ltft.)
4^2 Col.
seems to be the regular sense of 4" Acts 10" n^, Cf. the exex v6[xou,
pression 6
ex.
Rom.
3^8 4*^; 6
Rom. 4";
see also
Gal.
310.
13.
Kal avvvireKpLdrjcrav
avrw koI
"
And
there
him
Jews
also, so that
Hy-
is
from under a mask as the actor did, playing a part; cf. Lk. 20^0), usually takes the form of concealing wrong feelIn the ings, character, etc., under the pretence of better ones. present case, however, the knowledge, judgment, and feelings which were concealed were worse only from the point of view
of the
Jews of
whom
who
it
joined with
him
were
*
afraid.
the
From
was
their better
On
compound
(TvvvnoKpivofi.ai., see
S- 4Q'; Plut.
inN. T,
II,
12-14
log
knowledge which they cloaked under a mask of worse, the usual type of hypocrisy which proceeds from fear. By the characterisation of this
had been no
real
conduct as hypocrisy Paul implies that there change of conviction on the part of Peter and
the rest, but only conduct which belied their real convictions.
Jews" are manifestly the other Jewish Chrisfrom which it is evident that it was not Peter only who had eaten with the Gentile Christians but the Jewish Christians generally. That even Barnabas, who shared with Paul the apostleship to the Gentiles, yielded to the pressure exerted by the brethren from Jerusalem shows again how
rest of the
"The
tians in Antioch,
by the
latter,
Kaf
Syr.
S*ACDFGHKLP
al.
pier,
d g
It
is
(psh.
hard.)
Arm. Aeth.
decisive;
Victorin.
omitted by
internal evidence
of authorities
but
its
either from pure inadvertence was superfluous, seems somewhat more probable than its addition to the great body of authorities. "swept Tf) uxoxpfaet may be either a dative of accompaniment along with their hypocrisy" dependent on the auv in composition (cf. Eph. 5" Phil. 41* Rom. i2 et freq.) or perhaps, a little more probably, a dative of agent, "by their hypocrisy," "with them" being imOn the use of the verb auvaxiiYO), found also in Xen. and plied in auv. Lxx, cf. esp. 2 Pet. 31^
on
ovk opOoTroBovcriv
tt/jo? ttjv
aXrjQeiav
rov evayyeXioVj "But when I saw that they were not pursuing
a straightforward course in relation to the truth of the gospel."
The
ceding narrative
that
all
and even of Barnabas, took place before Paul himself took a position of open opposition to Peter. Had Paul, then, been
in
Antioch
all
no
Peter, to stem the tide,
latter alternative is
GALATIANS
and reluctant to
resort to this?
if
The
he was actually
present. But the most probable explanation of the facts, neither directly supported nor opposed by anything in the passage itself, is that Paul was absent during the early part
of
was due not to his arrival in Antioch but to a new perception (note the word elSov) of the significance of the question at issue. Possibly he himself had not, till this controversy cleared the air, seen how far the
he preached must carry him in his antino active opposition to Peter's attempt to bring the Jewish Christians under the law, and only when the movement began to spread to the Gentile Christians (see v. i< saw clearly
legalism,
principles of the gospel that
had
offered
fin.)
if the law was not binding upon tlie Gentile, neither could it be really so upon the Jew, and that when obedience to it by Gentile or Jew became an
was that
obstacle in the
way
Jew and
Gentile must
But on
this hypothesis
and
involved only less deeply than Peter in the latter's confusion of thought it is therefore hardly likely that he would have spoken in the
v.
" and in
in later eccl. writers where be traced to this passage, Ltft.), means "to make a straight path" rather than "to walk erect." Cf. bgUizoltq ^afvovTs.;, Nicander, Al. 419; and Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of Rom. and Byz. Period. Cf.
its
may
Paul's frequent use of xsptxaTiw, "to walk," as a figure for moral conRom. 6< 8S etc. The present word is apparently not simply a general ethical term for doing right, but, as the context
duct, chap. 5i
implies,
denotes straightforward, unwavering, and sincere conduct in contrast with the pursuing of a crooked, wavering, and more or less insincere
and those who folpresent tense describes the fact from the point of view of Paul's original perception of it "they are not acting straightforwardly." It is not, however, a historical present (Sief.)
lowed him.
The
but the present of the direct form retained in indirect discourse even after a past tense {BMT 341 [b]). The preposition xp6<; probably means "towards," "in relation to" (chap. 6^ 2 Cor. i'^ Col. 4'), and the phrase xpd? eOayr- constitutes a definitive limitation of
, . .
6p6oxoSouatv, yielding the sense "pursue a straight course in relation to the truth of the gospel," "to deal honestly and consistently with it,
II,
14
it."
III
xp6<;
may
indeed
But the
fact that
vjxzk
lo^'
Rom. 14"
more
not so
much
an attitude
(of straightforwardness or
crookedness) towards
it.
The interpretation
of the gospel
xp6<;,
but out of
is
context.
The
5. v.
The omission
those
who have
Tim.
of
mentioned
but when
all
the
members
esp. i
of the church
520.
were present.
Cf.
and
sion
How much
it is
what follows was actually uttered on this occaimpossible to say with certainty. Only the first sen-
it
whole of
it
Paul
is still it is
Yet on
the other
hand
He
itself,
(TV
'louSaZo?
eOvr)
v'Trdp')((Dv
iOvLfco!s
*IouSat/ca)9 fj?,
ra
livest
avayKa^ei^ ^lovBat^cLv; "If thou, though a Jew, after the manner of the Gentiles, and not after that of
the Jews,
after the
how
is it
Jewish manner?"
The terms
iOviKoy;
and ^lovhaiKSs
The
1 1
GALATIANS
is
{BMT
244.)
it
an overpressing of the present tense to maintain that must refer to an act at that very time in progress, which
plainly excluded
it is
is
by the preceding
narrative.
Grammatically
may
Acts
itself
be assumed to be
s
in force
{cf.
Mk.
2^
Mt.
i226ff-
227-
233.
pg. Sg42,
43)^
The
use of
it
way
In English we should
live," or "If
your
you
to live."
Over against
mode
of
life.
The words
as
avayKu^ea 'lovBat^cLv
the significance
if
upon the Gentile Christians. any longer to eat with them and by the adoption under his influence of the same course on the part of the Jewish members of the Antioch church, he left to the Gentiles no choice but either to conform to the Jewish law of foods, or suffer a line of division to be drawn through the church. It was this element of coercion brought to bear on the Gentile Christians
the forcing of Jewish practices
refusal
By 1113
that
made
Against
efforts to
of Jewish Christians, he
to
say so long as they were confined to Jewish communities, concerned the Jews only, and did not affect the Gentiles.
Peter,
Had
when he came
to Antioch, chosen
from the
first
to abstain
from eating with the Gentiles on the ground that his relation to the Jewish Christians made it inexpedient, Paul would prob-
II,
14
113
Peter, having
first
ably have
made no
objection.
But when
from the men that came from James, drew back, carrying all the other Jewish Christians with him, and forcing the Gentile
Christians to choose between subjection to the Jewish law and
the disruption of their church, this conduct involved an interference with the freedom of the Gentiles which
vital concern to
was
of
most
of
by
creating a divi-
of significance as
any
tto)?
ehpafiov
and
To
of et?
ra
edvrj (v.^).
the
view a second-rank thing sometimes happened for other reasons on a modern mission
their point of
field?
might have seemed an entirely a separate from Christian body. Has not a similar
it
matter on the
ground that they were not dictating to the Gentile Christians what course they should pursue; it did not concern them which horn of the
dilemma the Gentiles chose, whether they elected to observe the Jewish law, or to constitute a separate body from the Jewish believers;
they were concerning themselves only with the conduct of Jewish
Christians.
tion,
posi-
obligation of the Jews in the matter of foods; for the action of the
To Paul
the matter
To
field
he had
him
intolerable
and out
of the question.
Thus
for the
in the
law Jews and concerning the unity of the Christian comto take a position respecting the validity of the
in Gentile cities.
The former
at least
was decidedly in
114
GALATIANS
advance of the position taken at Jerusalem, though logically involved in it. The Jerusalem decision was essentially a compromise between contradictories, the vaKdity of the law, and
its
non- validity.
The
from
it left it
Peter to
when they should come into was sooner or later inevitable. The visit of Antioch and the subsequent arrival of the men from
conflict.
prac-
agreement must be kept at any cost the Jewish Christian must keep the law whatever the effect in respect to the Gentile
Christians.
Paul, carrying to
its
logical issue
the principle
which underlay the position which he had taken at Jerusalem, maintained that the Gentile Christians must not be forced to keep the law, even if to avoid such forcing the Jews themselves had to abandon the law. In Antioch much more clearly than at Jerusalem the issue was made between legalism and antilegalism. It was incidental to the event at Antioch, but from
the point of view from which Paul introduced the matter here, a matter of primary importance that on this occasion more decisively than ever before he declared his independence of
Udq
to
"how
is it
"why," expressing
See Horn.
20, etc.
221='
II,
'Avayxtil^etc; is
I-I4
115
an accomplished
undoubtedly
result,
BMT
ii.
'Iou8ai!^eiv,
way
hide
of life";
i.
e.,
to observe the
8^'': /.xl
Lxx
of Esth.
-zoXkoX
Mag.
lo': aroTcdv
eJTtv 'IyjjoOv
7'.
Xptaxbv
xal
EouBatt^stv,
it
and
is
found in Jos.
6vtx.(o? X,%<;, is
concesoriginal,
sive.
The view
of Ltft. that
wv,
is
but slenderly
supported by evidence.
uTrdpxo) in
Certainly this
is
N. T.
cf.
Acts
2'<'
4'^, etc.
The term
later writers;
eOvr/.w? occurs
0vtx6q,
Mt.
5^' 6^
iS'^ 3 Jn.
Bell. 6. 17 (i^;
Mac.
i^^^; Jos.
On
the meaning of
^jiq,
see
note on
^6uo, p. 134,
GAL.
The
this chapter
2i-
AND
ACTS, CHAPS.
10,
11,
15.
by
may
student of the
1.
life
of Paul.
visit to
and that
of 2^
is
its leaders,
combined with
on
2^,
he
is
and
contra,
visit to
21-1
was
for the
purpose
Cf.
on
v.
^.
The
was
who
community.
4.
The
Cf. on vv.^-', pp. 69, 75 defenders of the freedom of the Gentiles were Paul and Bar-
ment
in the
Antioch.
Il6
5.
GALATIANS
vately before the eminent
Paul presented the matter in Jerusalem both publicly, and primen of the church, James and Peter and
C/.
John.
6.
on
v.
*.
extreme legalists who had recently come into the church, desired that Titus should be circumcised, but finally, convinced by Paul's presentation of his gospel, 3aelded and gave their cordial assent to the prosecution of the Gentile
These
among the Jews. Cf. on vv. * ' '. Of any discussion at Jerusalem of the question
and any decision
strict division of
of the obligation
Paul's narrative;
no intimation in mat-
of the entire
and
own
conviction in his
own
without this implied provision the question that was raised as much unsettled as ever), was that he and Barnabas should
of the Jewish Christian
community.
Cf. p. 99.
the possibility of fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in the church having been agreed to at Jerusalem either on the basis of the Gentiles
law.
conforming to the Jewish law of foods or of the Jews disregarding their It is practically certain, therefore, that the practice of Jewish
and Gentile Christians eating together in disregard of the Jewish law arose at Antioch, independent of any decision at Jerusalem, and probably subsequent to the Jerusalem conference. Cf. on v.>% p. 105.
9.
What
is
was
nowhere
It
is
that the silence of the Jerusalem conference with reference to food was
due to the Gentiles having already adopted the Jewish law of food. Having refused to be circumcised, as the case of Titus shows they had, But it is not likely that they conformed to the law in respect to food.
if
not, the Jerusalem legalists, since they did not press the question of
food in the Jerusalem conference, were less insistent on conformity to the law in respect to this matter than in reference to circumcision, or
in respect to the former
pillar
In either case
it
is
insist
upon
The
element into the Jerusalem church, and the evidence of i" (g. v.) also indicate that the Jerusalem church was at first disposed to be hospitable towards the acceptance of Gentiles as Christians, and that
the question was not an acute one until
it
became
II,
I-I4,
15-2 1
When
this occurred the
117
Jerusalem
at
coming
first,
by conviction
and at length on the practical question also, sided with Paul so far as concerned the freedom of the Gentiles. Cf. pp. 77, 97. 11. This being the case, though Paul does not specifically mention the coming of the legalists to Antioch, such a visit is the most probable explanation of his coming to Jerusalem.
12.
is
The presence
it
of these
men
Jerusalem
is
noth-
ing in
ference.
13.
The
larities
visit of Acts ii"-3o (q/". 2 above), and the many simibetween Paul's narrative in 21-1" and that of Acts 15 make it necessary to suppose that these latter both refer to the same event; while the differences between the two accounts {cf. 7 and 8, above)
in
21-1"
with the
compel the conclusion that the Acts narrative is inaccurate as to the it has perhaps introduced here an event that belongs somewhere else. From the argument of Gal. i"-2'i {cf. i above)
result of the conference;
it
1 127-30 is
inaccurate.
From
8 and 10
it
whom God
is
gave
be rejected by them;
yet that
it
Jew-
and
p. 105
above.
g.
an exposition
of the
(2^^-21).
Having
i^-^^,
his controversy
on
its
still
in
if
situation
When
he leaves the
all,
The argument
is
at first an appeal to
and Peter had followed in seeking whereby they confessed the worthless-
ilS
ness of works of law.
GALATIANS
He then raises and answers the objection to his position that since his premises had led him and Peter to abandon and disregard the statutes of the law, they
had made Christ a minister
of sin,
this
is sin,
and
affirming,
trary, that one becomes a transgressor by insisting ence to the statutes of the law. This paradoxical statement he in turn sustains by the affirmation that he speaking now emphatically of his own experience through law died
to law,
it,
i.
e.,
by
his experience
in
The
further defends
by maintaining that
in his death
became a sharer
and that
will
in
new
faith
life
being
displaced
by
by those of the Christ, and his life being sustained upon the Son of God who loved him and gave himself
Finally he denies that in so doing he is making of no account the grace of God manifest in giving the law, pointing out that the premise of this objection that God intended law as the means of justification makes the death of
for him.
Christ
needless, a thing
admit.
though Jews by nature and not sinners of Gentile origin, that a man is not justified hy works of law, but only through faith in Christ Jesus, even we believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of law, because by works of law ''shall no fiesh be
''yet
^We
knowing
justified:'
'''But
we
found
to be sinners, is
By
no
means.
I broke down,
these
I build up
again, I show myself a transgressor. '^For I through law died to law that I might live to God. 20/ j^^ve been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ that liveth in me, and
the
life that
I now
live
in the fiesh, I
loved
live
is
in the
me and
21/
^q not
through
the grace of
God; for
if righteousness is
II,
I-I4, i5-i<^
^^9
15. 'H/it?
(l)V(Ti
edvMv dfiaprcoXoi,
"We
The
iTrtaTevaafiev,
by virtue of birth all the advanRom. s^' '), and hence of oppor-
and achieving righteousness through it (cf. Phil. 3^' ^), and not men born outside the law, and hence in the natural course of events possessing none of the advantages of it.
tunity of obeying
it
On
the use of
is
qjuaet, cf.
Rom. 2"
ii=i-2<.
the article)
qualitative in force.
The phrase
one of
origin, exactly
<p6ast 'louooclot.
antithetical in thought,
a'^apTtoXoc
is
evidently used not in its strict sense denoting persons guilty of sin, not perfectly righteous (see detached note on 'A^apTc'a but, as often in N. T., "persons (from the point of view of the
p. 436),
which he for the moment adopts) pre-eminently above others," "habitual transgressors of law." So of the publicans and other Jews, who at least from the Pharisaic point " is^' S etc., of view were guilty of specific violation of the law, Lk. y"and of the Gentiles, like our word "heathen," Mk. 14^ Lk. 24^; cf. 5vSpaq %(xpcxy6[iouq. Tob. I Mac. i'^: x.al eO-rjxav exet eOvo? dfJiapTtoXdv,
speaker or from
tliat
sinful," "sinners
eOvec dtXapTcoXdiv. I3: BetxvuG) zriM (a^uv xal tt)v txeyaXtoJUviQV auxou
16. elSoTe^ he
on
man is not justified by works of law." In antithesis to the preceding concessive phrase this is causal,
"yet knowing that a
giving the reason for the iirLo-Tevcra/jLev of the principal clause. To be justified, hKaiovaOaL, is to be accounted by God acceptable to him, to be approved of God, accepted as being such as
God
desires
man
to be.
those great words of the Pauline vocabulary, a right understanding of which is of the highest importance for the interpretation of this letter
and
its
quate conception of
phrase;
still less
be
justified in a sentence.
its
For a
toric
fuller discussion
true his-
Hght and to present the evidence which sustains the definition thus reached, see the detached note on Ai'/cato?, Ai/caioavpT]^ and AiKacoco^ p. 460, in particular under VI, N. T. usage,
I20
C.
2
GALATIANS
(b),
p.
473.
av6pa)7ro<; is
used in
its
wholly indefinite
ii^^.
Cf.
Rom.
3^8 i
Cor. 4^
We
%pr^(ov
meet here for the first time in this letter the phrase ef w/Aou, which in this letter and in the epistle to the Romans
Like BcKaLoo), the phrase
calls
an extended
note on No/to?,
tively,
and
a purely legahstic system made up of statutes, on the basis of obedience or disobedience to which men are approved or con-
demned
for
This
is
divine law
it
stands
divine revelation;
of
by such detachment
real attitude
towards men.
By
means deeds
istic spirit,
done in the
Though
had no
men who
The
cation
is
an act
of
Since, however, justifiGod, while ep^a vofiov are deeds of men, the
preposition in effect
marks
its
whose inadequacy for the justification of men the apostle says The translation of this phrase he and Peter already knew. here and constantly in RV. by " the works of the law," retained also in ARV., and in general the ignoring of the qualitative use of v6fjL0<; and other like terms, is a serious defect of these
translations.
Epistles, pp.
Cf.
Slaten,
Qualitative
Nouns
in
the
Pauline
39/.
iav
fir)
faith
II,
121
in Christ Jesus."
{cf.
eav
firj is
on
i^^),
but
it
may
statement taken as a whole or to the principal part of it in this case to ov Si/caLOVTai avOpcoiro^ ef epycov vo/jlov or to ov
The
would yield the thought if this be accompanied by faith, a thought never expressed by the apostle and wholly at variance with his doctrine as unambiguously expressed See, e. g., the latter part of this verse and in several passages.
to be chosen here, since the former
man
310-",
But
since the
word "except"
in English
is
what precedes, it is necessary to resort to the paraphrastic translation "but only." In TTtcTTt?, as in BtKaioo) and W/ao9, we have a word of central importance in the vocabulary of Paul. It signifies an acceptance of that which accredits itself as true, and a corresponding Its trust in a person which dominates the life and conduct.
personal object
of
is
God.
For
B. II
(e), p.
482.
The
following
clause
by
its relation
both the
specific
XpLarov
^Irjcrov is
therefore to
be taken as an objective genitive, expressing substantially the same relation to Trlcm^ which is expressed after the verb by
t9
l^pKTTOV
^lr](TOVV.
On
subjective, the
phrase denoting the faith which Christ exercised, see the brief note in The evidence that xfaxtq like iXxiq and dtycixTQ S. and H. on Rom. 3".
may
is
{cf.
Mk.
II" Acts
Thes. 2").
Xptarbv
'ItjctoOv
lxtaTe6aa[xev) is
in turn practiepistle.
meaning
of the phrase
throughout this
See
2" 3".
122
GALATIANS
The preposition Zi&, properly denoting channel and then means, here marks its object as the means through which one secures justification, and so, in effect, the conditioning cause, that in man by virtue of which he is justified by God. To draw any sharp distinction between hii as here used and ex. in e^ ^p^(si\ v6txou above or in ex -izla-zei^q below is
unjustifiable refinement, not legitimate exegesis.
After Sid
xfaretoc;
Ttjjou XptaToO.
XptJ-rou Tt)joO,
on the other hand, is the reading of AB 2;^, some mss. of Vg. Victorin. Aug. An examination of all the occurrences of the
title
'IifjaoOq
after ev,
but
elsewhere for
'Itqgt.
'Itjj.;
thus in
"
6^*-
^'
Trja.
In
i* 2<' 1'
3"'
"
portant variation.
where
ev
Xpiaxw
'ItjctoG
is
doubtless an
of authori-
by a
large
number
rect text is
undoubtedly
as
'Itjjou
Xptaxou,
reads Iv XptJxy
On
after
'I-Ojou
shown above, good authority for both XptaxoO most authorities read 'I-qaoQy XpiaT6v, but B 322, 429, Syr. (psh. hard.) Boh. Aeth., etc., read XpuTbv 'IrjaoOv, which Tdf. adopts and WH. prefer; in 5^* toG xP'^J'^ou TTjaou is
xiaieiaq there
is,
and
many
authorities
between
Itj-
ev XpiaxcT) 'ItqjoO
Only
not after
ev
without variation; in
only
B
ev
all
The evidence
Xpuxqi and
Xptar^
'iTjaou
occur
in
epistles
between the two forms, but has the form ev 'IigaoG Xptaxy been
ev
. . .
noted.
Thes.
i'
y.upftp 'ItjjoG
Xptaxcp.
Some
and transpose to Xptaxcp 'I-qjoQ. In Phil. 3>< to Iv Xptaxq) 'IiQjoG some Western authorities add xupfw after ev and then transpose to 'Irjcoij Xpcaxq). See also Rom. 14** Phil. 2i where numerauthorities omit xupfcp
In other
was the apostle's usual habit to write Xptaxqi or Xpcaxw 'IiQaoG after ev and to prefer the form TrjaXp- rather than Xp- 'Itqg. in other positions, yet it also shows (a) that he allowed himself a certain liberty in the matter, and (b) that the tendency of the scribes was (as was natural) to conform his text to his
words, while this evidence shows that
usual habit.
The evidence
mate
of the testimony of
AB
and points to the conclusion that in such ^u (j, j,.) ^2*^ it is the apostle
II,
123
who
has departed from his usual habit; most of the scribes have conit.
Kal
CK
r]ixei<i
ek ^picrrov
7rL(TTea)<i
we might be
justified
Christ
of law."
On
and the
comment on
emphasis on
es-
throwing
its
'lovBaloi of
definite
self to
v^\
form
and most
Christ
on the
esp.
A.
2, p.
480.
of
The emphasis
lTCtaTeuaa[JLv, is
"va
vojxou,
limitations; the
of emphasis
differs
which alone justification is possible. For a somewhat similar instance upon one element of a clause, see Rom. 6^\ ex xfaxewq
from
means by
Th. Ik
(for ix)
is justified.
Cf.
and
3^'
for
chap.
328
Rom.
'2;
3^2.
25
i?ph. 2^
312. i?;
chap.
8-
Rom.
i^^^
3"
41* 5* g'o-
and
especially
Rom.
3'",
where,
as here, the
in adjacent clauses.
zlq
On
Xpccxbv
'IrjaoCiv,
see
on XptaToO
SiKaLcoOrjo-eTaL
flesh
This clause, added end of a verse which has already twice expressed in effect the same thought, is evidently intended to confirm what has been said by the authority of scripture. The words ov BcKaibe justified."
codriaeTaL iraaa crdp^ are
law shall no
from Ps.
124
the
GALATIANS
Lxx
(which
itself
renders the
is
ivojTrLov aov,
"before thee,"
here used
by
metonymy
2apf, There
for
is
practically
equivalent to avOpauro^.
p. 486, esp. p. 492.
The words
e'^
line,
"Enter
if
not into judgment with thy servant," which gives to the words
that Paul has quoted the sense,
justified
all
oft-recurring
"But if through The most frequent use Pauline phrase iv X/Jto-rw is that by
with Christ.
^^
See Th.
iv, I 6 b.
Cf.
Frame on
Thes.
i^
and
In Christo Jesu^ But this can be adopted by assuming that by an ellipsis of some such words as hih TO elvai the phrase iv X/Jto-rw really stands for "by virtue of being in Christ." For this reason and because iv with BLKacoo) usually has its causal and basal sense (see Th. iv I 6 c) it is
mentliche Formel
here only
best to give
it
iv^
3": iv
(T(o<;
v6/XQ)
ovBeh BiKacovTai.
Acts
13^^:
TYj^
iv X/atcrrw Tt^ctoO.
aifiari avrov.
vofjL^
ovrai.
Thus
is
in a sense
of the preceding
which renders
cause.
II,
i6-i7
also
125
were
evpedTjfiev fcal
avrol dfjLaprcoXoL,
found to be sinners."
indicating
maintaining the point of view of his address to Peter. The addition of /cat in connection with uvtol and dfiaprcoXoL carries the thought back to the expression ovk
e6vo)v dfjiapTcoXoL in v.^^
e'f
is
to
be taken here in the sense suggested by that verse, "men outside of the law," "violators of the law," having reference to
the disregard of the statutes of the law, especially those concerning clean and unclean meats, which statutes Paul, and for
kept.
ought not under the circumstances existing at Antioch to be That they had become sinners by seeking to be justified
in Christ,
The supposed
from the
case, ^TjTovvre^
mouth
an actual or supposed objector, and accepts it as a correct statement of the situation in a sense of the words which he recognises as current. For confirmation of this interpretaof
tion, see
on
firj
yevoLro below.
eupiOif)[xsv
is it
The
passive force of
not be pressed.
in later
Not only
Greek a middle or intransitive force (Butt. p. 52), so that might easily mean, "we found ourselves," but it is clear from N. T. examples that eup8Y)v in particular had the sense "prove to be," "turn out to be," almost "to become," without special thought
eupeOrj^Lsv
See
Yet
and
is
in a
measure
quoting here the language of his opponents, who, referring to his violation of the statutes of the law,
would put
i
"You
Cor. 11"
Pet. i^
dpa
min-
ister of
sin?"
The
sentence
is
126
GALATIANS
than an assertion because of the following fir] yevoLTO, which in Paul regularly follows a rhetorical question.* dfiapTLa^; Bkikovo^
is
who
is
in
bondage
Cf.
to sin"
(cf.
who
of dfiaprcoXoL
noun dfiapTia
its
which
not in accordance with true righteousness." The noun dfiapTLa is apparently never used in the formal sense,
violation of law, in
N.
T.,
and though
in
absence of any example of it is against it and the nature of the argument here even more decisively so. The conclusion which
Paul by
/J'Tj
The whole
which Paul
is
imphed
in dixarcoXoC
and
dfxapTLa^ respectively.
p. 436.
firj yevoLTo' "by no means," ht. "let it not be." This phrase used in N. T. almost exclusively by Paul (elsewhere in Lk. 20I6 only) is uniformly employed by him to repel as abhorrent
to
When
standing alone
(it is
other-
wise only in
(i
themselves accepted as true, do not justify; and usually Cor. 6^5 and possibly Rom. ii^ are the only exceptions),
conclusion which
his
may
from
own
jii^
J-
previous statements.
Rom.
3'*,
6^- ^^
y7, 13 gi4
this
phrase
* Whether we are to read 3pa or apo. there seems to be no decisive reason to determine; the sentence being a question and that question being whether a certain inference follows
from a supposed
situation. S.pa, which is an interrogative particle, leaves the illative element unexpressed, while apa, an illative particle, leaves the interrogation unexpressed. But apa. being frequent in Paul, whereas there is no clear instance of apa in his writings, the pre-
sumption is perhaps slightly in favour of the former. The difference of meaning is not great. Of the hesitation or bewilderment which lexicographers say is suggested by S.pa, there is no
trace here.
II,
i;
127
that the preceding words
are important.
make
it
position el
what At^ yevocTo denies is not the supdfJiaprcoXoi and with it the conclusion based
upon
it,
The
became
Christ,
by seeking
to
be
justified in
but denies that from this fact one can legitimately draw the conclusion which hi opponents allege to follow and by
viz.,
that Christ
is
Of
tions.
many
by
interpreta-
be
a few.
ferences between
made
clear
setting
The difdown
Christ
We are seek(3)
We
(i)
a minister of
sin.
Proposition
osition (3)
is
he undoubtedly denies.
used in proposition
sense, verita-
ble wrong-doing.
The
differences of interpretation turn mainly upon is the sense of the word " sinners," djAaptoXof, in
ancient and
&'^(xpii(xq
(x-f)
modem,*
.
a^Lap-ztokol is
in the next clause, " sinners " in the proper sense of the word, Y^votTo denies
and assumed that they stand or fall together, as must indeed be the case if t^fjLapxwXof and aixapxfaq correspond in meaning. This interpretation takes on two slightly different Stdixovoq is supposed to be an affirmation forms, according as et of an objector quoted by Paul, or a question put by Paul himself. In
both
(2)
and
(3)
it is tacitly
the former case the objector, a legalist Jewish Christian, tacitly assuming that violation of law
is sin,
reasons that
by
their
abandonment
of
law in their effort to obtain justification in Christ the Jewish Christians have themselves become sinners and thus have made Christ a minister of sin, from the objector's point of view a reductio ad absurdum which discredits the whole Pauline position. To this Paul replies deny Sief . cites as holding substantially this view, but with various modificatioss : Chrsrs.
Thdrt. Cecum. Thphyl. Erasm. Luth. Cast. Calv. Cal. Est. Wolf. Wetst. Semi. Koppe, Borg. Fl. Win. Ust. Matth. Schott. B-Cr. de W. Hilg. Ew. Mey. Pfleid. Wetzel, Ws. This
is also
128
GALATIANS
any ground for affirming that they have made If on the other hand the sentence is a question,
justified in Christ (without
ing that (by violating law) they have been found sinners, and denying
therefore that there
is
made
Christ a
yivoiTo denies that they have (by and as before by abandoning law) become sinners, and hence that there is any ground In either for saying that they have made Christ a minister of sin.
they are found sinan objection to this interpretation in all of its forms that it disregards both the obvious force of fivoizo in relation to the preceding sentence and the apostle's [lil regular usage of it. As Zahn well points out, the question which [li) yhoixo) is by Y^vocTo answers (that it is a question, see above on its very terms not an inquiry whether the premises are true, but whether the alleged conclusion follows from the premise. The placing of
is
not
sin) that
It is
[jl-Jj
bpiQri\i.ey
in the
conditional
etc.,
unquestionably
&[).ap'ziaq
admitted
8i(5:xovo<;
Z,rixoiJyxeq,
implies
in
that
it
is
only Xpioxhq
.
.
that
is
called
question.
If
eupl8-r]pLev
&[iapx(iikoi
were also disputed the sentence ought to have been as follows: "Seek-
we ourselves also found to be sinners, and is Christ accordingly a minister of sin? " This conclusion as to the meaning of the sentence is still further confirmed by the fact that by stated above, Paul regularly negatives a false conclu[lil ylvotxo, as sion from premises which he accepts. Of the interpretations which, giving the necessary weight to the usage of [!?) yivocTO, find in it a denial not of prop. (2) and a consequent denial of (3), but of the legitimacy of the deduction of the conclusion (prop. 3) from the premise (2) the correctness of which is thereby iming to be justified in Christ, were
plied,
may
.
be mentioned:
strict
Wies.,
sense,
and make
dtxapxwXof
which
This view manifestly involves is found to commit. an idea remote from the context, and is generally regarded as incor-
Several
a'^agxiiikoi in
by
d[JLapT(oXo( in v. i^ sinners in
a consequence which
logically
and in Xptaxbi; djj-apTfaq which Paul denies in ^^ yiwixo. Thus it may be supposed that Paul has in mind an objector who alleges that, inasmuch as the apostle's
own
reasoning
is
make
II,
justification involves for the
17
129
himself on the plane of the
sin;
Jew putting
is
Gentile, therefore
to
which Paul,
in reply,
So clearly
Ltft.,
who
states his
justified in Christ it
was necessary to abandon our old ground of legal righteousness and to become sinners {i. e., to put ourselves in the position of heathen), may
it
is
thus
made a
minister of sin?"
So also
substantially Zahn,
who
defiinitely
we
Christians,
and that "C^iYzouyzeq and Sief., who parahowever, on our part sought to
.
.
be
justified
it is
proved
that we, just like the heathen, are sinners; this, in fact, follows from
what was
with
is
whom
on works
nificance
promoter of sin?"
it
In favour of
be said that
xal
au-rot,
of
IJ.T)
^hoi'zo
and
is
d[xapTO)>.o{ in
a sense suggested
by
of xapaPczTTj? below,
which
ambiguity of dfjiapTtoXoi, and does not make the argument turn on remote and unsuggested premises. It may be doubted, however,
whether
of the
it
it
its
explanation
argument too much from the situation at Antioch as depicted m w. "-i*, and finds the occasion for the apostle's question in a supposed logical inference from the doctrine of justification in itself rather than in the actual and recent conduct Whether these words were actually uttered in of Peter and Paul. substance at Antioch or not, the Antioch incident furnishes their
word
background.
is still in
to himself
zbgi^i]\x.zv yjxX aOxol d^apTwXoi he refers and Peter, or possibly to the Jewish Christians who had associated themselves with his movement, and describes them as be-
coming, or as being discovered to be, violators of the Jewish law. The sentence thus takes on a definite and concrete meaning appropriate
to the context.
But
supposes Paul to be replying to an objection, or himself presenting to Peter's mind an inference from his recent conduct in ceasing to
eat with the Gentile Christians.
our
that
becoming
and
does
it follow,
my
critics allege,
130
GALATIANS
In the latter case it means: "You was while seeking to be justified in Christ become violators of law at Antioch; are you willis
that
we were
led to
ing, then, to
your conduct
possible.
with the
Either
sin?"
They
nect the thought with the Antioch event and that, recognising the usage
of
[li]
-{eyoi-co,
they
make
[lij
Yevot-co
on the
But it is in favour of the form which finds an objection that e6piOir][xsv is more suggestive of the attitude of a critic than of an original statement of Paul (see above on s6pe6-), and especially that [li) yivoiTo is more naturally understood as repudiating the conclusion and false reasoning of an objector, than as a comment of the apostle on his own argument addressed to Peter. To combine the two interpretations, as Bous.
statutes of law
in
them an answer
to
is
it is
Paul's position
who
of sin,
and
Paul who
points out to Peter that his recent conduct issues in this impossible
18.
el ya,p
show myself a transgressor." By this statement the apostle sustains his firj lyevoiro, in which he denied the validity of the argument that by becoming a violator of law he had made Christ a minister of sin, the suppressed premise of which was that violation of law was sin. By a /careXvaa is obviously meant the statutes of the law which Paul had by his
up
again, I
The reasoning
its
of this sentence
So far from
it is, on the conup again those commands of the law which I broke down, I show myself therein a transgressor. This was precisely what Peter had done by his vacillating conduct; but Paul instead of saying either "thou" or "we," tactThat he uses the form fully applies the statement to himself.
commit
by
I build
II,
ly-iS
is
131
probably due to his really
that not
having
up the wall he had by disobeying statutes of the law he becomes a transgresbut by obeying the sor is, of course, obviously paradoxical and itself requires proof;
in
mind
The statement
this is furnished in v. ^^
On
xaxaXud)
and
o!-/,oBo[X(o
in their
literal
sense,
cf.
Mk.
15", h
law or the like, xaTaXuo) means "to deprive of force," "to abrogate" {cf. Mt. 5": \>.^ vo^iat]Te oTi ^X0ov xaxaXuffat xbv v&^ov r\ tou^ xpocpTj-raq), and oJxoSoixd)
/.al
oHolo\i.Q>v.
But
as applied to a
means
The word xapa^aTv^? is doubtless chosen instead of k\x.a<?'zhikbq, in order to get rid of the ambiguity of this latter term, which lay at the The -jcapa^iiTTQq is a viobasis of the opponent's fallacious reasoning.
lator of the law, not of the statutes,
but of
To have
added toO
a sense of
v6[xou
v6[xoc;
correct,
occurs throughout
the context.
The
usage, employing xapa^i:TTQ<; for the technical violator of the statute, and ati.a?T(i)X6<; for the real sinner, the man who was not acting according to God's will, and had he been quite free in the matter
it is
not im-
so.
of his opponents,
who employed d'sxapTwXdc; rather than xapa^axTQc; for the Gentiles and those who like them did not observe the requirements of the law, compelled
^kxriq
him to use this as the ambiguous term, and to resort to when he wished a strictly moral and unambiguous term.
225. 27)^
xapo:It is
which he uses
but one
it
who
is
disobedient to
in point
The verb
is
form of
auviaxTfjixt,
in
N. T. employed
to exhibit
by
one's
in one's conduct.
eSs
ri'xaq
Thus
oxt
2
in
Rom.
6<- ".
5': auvfaxiQaiv Ss
ovxcov
is
-f)[xd)v
sauToO
dyaxTjv
ri'^dv
Gebq
exc
dpLapxwXwv
Xpiaxbq uxsp
axIBavsv.
See also
Cor.
There
there-
fore nothing in the force of the verb that requires the interpretation,
was
(in
show myself
therein
(i.
e.,
in the
132
GALATIANS
verb sometimes meant "to establish" (see
ii'
There are indications that the Num. 27" 2 Mac. 141'' 3 Mac.
this
2", though in
usage does
is
not demanded by
On the paradox involved in the statement of this verse, see Rom. 3", where the apostle maintains, and in chap. 4 endeavours to prove, that the principle of faith, rejecting law, is not hostile to law but consonant with
it;
Rom.
8^-*,
where he declares in
v.' insisted
law
away
chap.
may
be
fulfilled;
where having in
v.^^
nevertheless in
law.
distinctly implies
19. iyo)
yap
BiavoixovvofjLCi)
died to law."
The
use of the
what would be equally true of any Christian, e. g., of Peter, and appUed to himself only hypothetically, becomes now emphatic. Note the expressed iyco, which together with the use of direct
ing verse was unemphatic because Paul was speaking of
assertion indicates that the apostle
is
now speaking
so that
it
of his
own
personal experience.
is
to cease to
has no further
See
Rom.
62- lo-
"
7 6.
That
which Paul here refers in vofiov and vofjiw is evidently law in some sense in which it has played a part in the preceding discussion, and most obviously divine law as a legaHstic system, a body of statutes legalistically interpreted (see detached note on No/A09, pp. 443-460, esp. V 2 (c), p. 457). Paul would certainly not say that he
had died
2 (b)).
Law
as a
tween the
able
and
ethical interpretation
would be a
po/xo)
suitif
meaning
of Blo, vofjLov,
only
we
its statutes.
all
On
It
was on the
II,
i8-i9
133
it
the Jewish Christians continue to obey the law of foods. It was this to which Paul refers in v. ^^ in the phrase ej epyoiv vofxov.
was under this that he had lived in his Pharisaic days, and under which he had ceased to live (died to it), and to this he may well have referred as that through which he had been
It
How
him by
made
there
evident to
is
But
no more
mind the experience under the law to the result of which he refers in v.^^ and which he describes at length in Rom., chap. 7. There he tells how the law by 6 v6fio<; he doubtless means the Mosaic law in its legahstic interpretation had by his experience under it taught him his own inability to meet its spiritual requirements and its own inabiHty to make him righteous, and thus led him finally to abandon it and to seek
salvation in Christ.
The
as
more
tion of law,
(qualitatively considered, as
of the article),
but with a constant shifting of emphasis from one phase to another. We may then mentally supply v6ij.ou in this general sense after xapa^dxiQV
if
I build
which
broke down,
up again the authority of those statutes i. e., insist again upon the obligation
of divine
to obey them, I
become a transgressor
law
(in its
deepest
to aban-
my
taught
me
don
it,
as a
body
more
of statutes to be obeyed,"
the simpler,
direct
and
self-consistent
probably, therefore,
to the
7*:
to be preferred.
The
interpretation of Sia
v6[ji.ou
according to which
it refers
fact expressed
e6avaTa)6T]Te T{p
by the words
v6t.(j)
8td:
Rom.
probably cor-
than the
one
proposed
Sto:
above.
tou
Sect
vdjAou
obviously equivalent to
aw^iaToi;
tou
134
The words
is
GALATIANS
are different and the connection is different. There Paul stating the objective grounds for freedom from the law; here, as the emphatic iy& implies, he is appealing to personal experience. Had
his
thought been what this interpretation supposes, it would certainly have been more natural that he should write, ij[ielq Sid: (xoO) v6;xou Moreover, it is by no means clear that Paul (t(p) vd^JLO) eOavaT(I)OY3[xev. conceived of the law as demanding and causing the death of Christ. In chap. 31' he expresses the thought that the law pronounces a curse
on the
tial to
sinner,
the interpretation
thought of Christ by faith its own dominion over men who are joined with That the work of Christ thought which Paul has nowhere expressed. should avail to avert the curse of the law from man, and to end the
from which Christ by his death frees us. But it is essennow under consideration that he should have the law as bringing Christ to his death, and thereby ending
dominion of law, affords a basis for the statement that through Christ I " See died to law {cf. Rom. 8^) but not for through law I died to law." interpretaSief. for defence of this general view and criticism of other
tions,
and Zahn
^7}o-co-
for
a criticism of
it.
ha
147.
8
6ew
2
^'that I
might
live to
God."
Cf.
Rom.
6'^-
^'
Cor.
5^5.
This clause expressing the purpose of the is in effect also an argument in defence
to law in reality prevented
to
It
is
God this
is
one vice of
legalism, that it comes between the soul and God, interposing law in place of God and that it had to be abandoned if the life was really to be given to God. This is a most important element of Paul's anti-legahsm, showing the basis of his opposi-
tion to
legaHsm in
its failure
rehgiously, as in
Rom.
f-^^ he
The
results
dative
0(p is,
as in
Rom.
6^"- ",
clausebut while
it
after
it
implies separation,
results equally
it
of the
verb
l,!k(i>
a dative of advantage, as
Cor. $"
On
The verb "Q&oi is used by the apostle Paul in four senses, which are, however, not always sharply distinguished: i. "To be alive, to be a living being " (a) of men in contrast with dying or with the dead i Thes.
:
:
4.
17
Rom.
6"(?)
2.
7^'
* *
12' 14'- *
II,
Phil. I". "; cj. I
I9-20
4';
135
14";
Tim,
5 2
Tim.
(b) of
Rom.
9*^ 10*
Thes. 38
Rom.
7' (?);
Cor. 9".
live in
a certain
way"
"
power or to the direction of energy: chap. 21*- is- " Col. 2^0 3'; cj. 2 Tim. 3" Tit. 2'^. 3. In quotations from O. T. in a soteriological
death," the penalty of
justified": chap.
sin,
525
Rom.
6* S^".
sense:
"to escape
chap.
3^2
Rom.
4.
10* (quotation
3" Rom. i^' (in quotation from Hab. from Lev. 18^.
"to possess eternal
"To
13*
Rom.
3.
All the instances in this chap, fall under 2 above; those in chap. 3
under
crucified
with
The thought
of
participation with
Christ in the
work is a favourite one with Paul, and the metaphors by which he expresses it are sometimes
Cf.
quite complicated.
Rom.
literal
the believer
were in
with him,
course, impossible. The thought which mind and enthusiastic joy in the thought with Christ led him to express in this form in-
volves in
itself
viz.: the
him
of the
first
analogous experience.
in 2 Cor. 5^^
The
424. 25^
is
distinctly expressed
and
The second
the predominant
element in Phil.
and the third in Rom. 8^^, while in Rom. 6^ both the second and the third are probably in mind. In the
the
is
upon the
cross,
136
^
'
GALATIANS
of
Whether this death to law is related to is his death to law. the death of Christ objectively by virtue of a participation of 32". 2^) or the believer in the effects of Christ's death (c/. Rom.
subjectively
by a
Rom.
a^"'
cated.
the one side, Paul has elsewhere expressed the idea that the believer is free from law by virtue of the work, specifi2^' Eph. 1; cf. Gal. z"^cally the death, of Christ (chap. 3" Col.
On
2* 51
Rom.
10"),
and
dying with Christ. On the other hand, while he has several times spoken of dying with Christ in the sense of entering into a spiritual fellowship with him in his death, he has nowhere
clearly connected the
freedom from the law with such fellowProbably therefore he has here in mind rather the objective fact that the death of Christ brings to an end the reign of law (as in Rom. lo^ and esp. Col. 21^) than that the
ship.*
individual believer
is
by
Yet such
is
In either case the expression still further enforces the argument in defence of his death to law. It was brought about through law; it was necessary in order that I might Hve to
God;
it is
of Christ
it
he made us free from law, bringing lowship with him in that death.
Ltft., interpreting auvecjTaupa)[xs:t
to
by the use
of the
Rom.
66
death to
Such a change
by no means impossible in Paul (see the varied use of ^[JL^pa in i Thes. s"^-^). But a sudden veering off from the central subject of his thought the point which it was essential that he should carry to an irrelevant matter is not characteristic of the aposde, and is certainly not demanded here by the mere fact that he has in another context used similar phraseology in a sense required by that
cation of a figure
context, but not harmonious with this. fo)
he ovKTC ijM,
^rj
Be ev
ifJLol
Xptaror
'
Gal. 2 would be an example of this manner of speaking if meaning "in fellowship with Christ" rather than "on the basis of
Xpio-ro;
work
II,
20
137
is
"and
Be
is
live
very expressive even when reproduced in Engno longer I, but liveth in me Christ." The
same
AV. and RV., "Yet I live, yet no longer I," is wholly unwarranted; this meaning would have required aWd before ovkti. Cf. RV. mg. The second Be is sub-adversative (Ell.), equivalent to the German "soning sentence.
The
translation of
statement.
is
clearly speaking of
spiritual fellowship
on
v.^^).
Yet
this is
not a
He
v.^^
was that he might devote himself directly to the service of God instead of to the keeping of commandments. He now adds that in so doing he gains a new power for the achievement of that
purpose, thus further justifying his course.
Saying that
it is
no longer "I" that live, he implies that under law it was the "I" that Kved, and the emphatic ej(o is the same as in Rom.
yi5-2o^
There, indeed,
it
is
stands in vv."-
20
in direct antithesis
(cf.
to the dfiapTca
which
Rom.
5^2)^
who
is
of one
But the
by
"
700 is the
man
willing
the inherited evil impulse and undei law unable to do the good.
On
I
i/xoi,
see
Rom.
8^'
Cor.
Eph.
3I6-19.
It
is,
of course, the
heavenly
5^^' ^^' ^s).
Christ of
whom
he speaks,
who
God
{cf.
chap.
With
this spiritual
being Paul
feels himself to
be living in such
intimate fellowship,
by him
his
whole
life is
so controlled, that
he conceives him to be resident in him, imparting to him impulse and power, transforming
him
for
fact of fellowship
him morally and working through Substantially the same Cf. 4^^. with Christ by which he becomes the conwith a difference of form
138
GALATIANS
the relation,
in
by the phrase
ii^
eV X/oto-ro),
which
Paul than
e^oC.
28 ^4^ 2,-nd
and references
there given to
modern
literature.
and the
sentence
life
that I
now
The
is
continuative
life
and epexegetic
obviously
life
still
of
which,
no longer Hving, he
not an independent
Hves,
by
declaring that
of faith, of
it is
of his
own, but a
life
God.
See below.
relative 6
is
an accusative of content, which simply puts form the content of the verb ? (Delbriick, vvv maniVergleichende Syntax, III i, 179; Rob. p. 478). festly refers to the time subsequent to the change expressed in ev aapxi vofiw aireOavov and the corresponding later phrases, is therefore not an ethical characterisation of the life (as in Rom. 8^' 8) but refers to the body as the outward sphere in which the Hfe is lived, in contrast with the life itself and the spiritual force by which it was lived. By this contrast and the fact that adp^ often has an ethical sense, the phrase takes on perhaps a slightly concessive force: " the life that I now live though in the flesh is in reality a life of faith." On the use of a-dp^ in general, see detached note on Jlvevfia and 2a>f, p. 492.
into substantive
The
The words
ev xfaxet
life is
lived,
is
physical
it
is
in ev xfaxec
life,
and not determinative of the nature moral and is determinative of the charis,
acter of the
in force,
xfjxet
and though properly a noun of personal action, is here conceived of rather as an atmosphere in which one lives and by which one's For other instances of this use of the preposition life is characterised. with nouns properly denoting activity or condition, see i Cor. 4" 2 Cor.
37-
Eph.
4>=
5^
is
f'
rfj
in the
Son
of
God."
vpaving
II,
20
139
new
now
hastens to identify
that faith
by
of a qualitative
noun made
see
definite
by a subjoined
p. 174);
W.
XX
(WM.
irlari'i^
Rad.
p. 93;
3^1.
Rob.
p. 777;
BMT 424;
genitive after
and see on
cf.
chap, i^
On
the objective
v.^^.
On
The
and Predicates
of Jesus,
Y, p. 404.
What
par-
ticular
title
as applied to Jesus is
here in mind, or
'Irjaov^,
why
it is
passage thus
far,
there
is
is
No
theory
more
the Son of
God
as the
God
comes naturally to his lips in thinking of the love of Christ. See Rom. 8^- ^'^; but notice also Rom. 5^ 8^- ^^, and observe in
the context of these passages the alternation of titles of Jesus
ToO Gsou:
so
^^ACD^
et cKLP, all the cursives, f Vg. Syr. Arm. Eth. Goth. Clem., and other fathers.
Ln. adopted the reading toQ Oeoa xal Xptaxou attested by BD* FG d g. Despite its attestation by B, this is probably a Western corruption.
The
God
faith.
TOV
aya7n](TavT6<i
fie
ifiov'
''who loved
me and
on
as
chap.
Here
Eph.
irapaSLBco/jLL {cf.
Rom.
52. 25^
esp.
52)
to Christ's volunp^e
The
use of
and
e/JLou
and
r}p,a)v
The whole
is
expression, while
of Christ's
work
rather a spontaneous
I40
and
GALATIANS
grateful utterance of the apostle's feeling called forth
by
God
On
the mean-
OvK
of
no
God."
is doubtless an answer to an objection which the apostle knows to have been urged or which he foreThis objection, sees may easily be urged against his doctrine.
without connective,
as
is
shown by the
is
%/3ii; of this
making
of
no account
God
it is
to Israel in giving
is
Rom.
3^0
Since X/9t9
by
his critics
as that
by
of
his doctrine of
it was taken up some such statement grace as against law he was really
making
God
to Israel.
This
criti-
would be natural
critics
to expect him to turn the critiby intimating that it was they who rejected But to have suggested this thought gospel.
he must,
it
On dcSeTw, "to set aside," "to reject," M. and M. Voc. s. v. On the meaning of
el
Mk.
7' i
Thes.
i'.
4' Gal.
3";
xi^P"^. see
on
aireOavev.
"for
righteousness
is
lessly."
On
It
word
p. 460.
its forensic
sense (VI B.
little
3^2.
u r^j^.
s"^^-^^ s'-
^;
i*).
is
its legalistic
note on No/xo?
V2
(c), p.
457,
result,"
141
never has, certainly not in N. T., nor "freely," in the sense
"gratuitously," "without
(giving or receiving)
pay," which,
though a well-established meaning of the word (see Rom. 324, and cf. also M. and M. Voc. s. v), would be wholly inappropriate here, but "without cause," "needlessly," as in
Jn. 15^^
The
protasis el
is
BcKaLoavvr]
is
in
form a simple
5^,
supposition, which
Rom.
when
the context
makes
it
but also
See
where
it is
equally clear
it is
contrary to fact.
is
BMT
deny,
248,
249.
The argument
of
the sentence
as
from a adduced
I
was no need that Christ should die. and the conception of righteousness as obtainable through it, was well established in the world. If this conception was correct, if righteousness could really be attained in this way, there was no need of a new revelation of God's way of righteousness (see Rom. i^^ 32^); and the death
righteousness, then there
Law
of
Christ,
with
its
demonstration
of
divine
righteousness
(Rom. 325 ^) and God's love (Rom. 5^-^) and its redemption of men from the curse of the law (see chap. 3^^ and notes on it), was needless. That in the plan of God it came to pass (chap, i* 4* Rom. 8^2) is evidence that it was not needless, and this in turn proves that righteousness through law was not God's plan for the world, and refutes the charge that denial of the validity of
law to secure righteousness involves a setting aside of the
grace of God.
and
directly
etc.,
God
not
an answer to an objection but as an indirect condemnation of the course of Peter, the meaning being, I do not set aside the grace of God manifest in the death of Christ, as is virtually done by those who
insist
is
that righteousness
is
through law.
The
clauses?
Stxatoauvrj
ness
it.
For to affirm
142
that righteousness
is
GALATIANS
is to say that God's grace manifest Such an interpretation of the argument, though not perhaps impossible, is open to two objections: first, that the form of expression, "I do not set aside," etc., suggests a denial of something that is said or might be speciously said against Paul's view, rather than a claim made by himself for his view or an objection to
through law
in his death
was
useless.
it makes the el ydp sentence a proof of something only remotely implied in the preceding statement instead of taking it as directly related to what is expressed in the pre-
ceding sentence,
viz.,
III.
Appeal
to the
tians (3^"^).
of his doctrine
own
now
takes
up
that defence
by
it
by appeal-
ing to the early Christian experience of the Galatians, which, as both they
and he
well knew,
was not
but of
faith.
Oh foolish
Galatians,
before
hearing of faith ?
are ye
^Are ye so foolish ?
now
*Did ye suffer so
many
things
in vain ?
If
it
really is to be in vain.
^He
Ill,
143
*n
avorjTOt
TaXdrai,
oh
fcar o<^6a\-
'l7j(Tov<;
"Oh
foolish
Galatians,
who bewitched
Returning to the situation in was placarded crucified?" Galatia itself, which he had left behind in I^ but still having in mind what he had just said in 2^1 to the effect that the legalistic teaching of the judaisers makes the death of Christ a fact
without significance, a useless tragedy, the apostle breaks forth, somewhat as in i^, in an expression of surprise touched with
indignation that the Galatians were turning
gospel of Christ crucified
fact,
{cf.
away from
his
Cor.
i^^- 23
2^).
To
this great
with the
which
it
should, therefore,
on a bulletin-board, and have been impossible for them ever the judaisers tends to blind them as
by mahcious magic. The verb jBaaKaivoi (see below) is doubtless used tropically with the meaning "lead astray," and the question, which is, of course, rhetorical, refers to the same persons who in 1 7 are spoken of as troubling them and seeking to pervert the gospel of the Christ.
On
The
addition of
-zji
&\-qMq:
[i^
by CD"KLP
is
al. pier., is
a manifest corruption under the influence of 5^. 'AvoTQTo?, a classical word from Sophocles and Herodotus down,
24"'
found in N. T., besides here and v.', in Lk. Tit. 3'. Properly a passive, "unthinkable,"
ordinarily in classical writers
"foolish," "lacking in
Rom.
i^* i
Tim.
it has in N. T., as also and regularly in the Lxx, the active sense, the power of perception." i Tim. 6' is not a real
exception, the
easy
metonymy
The usage
and
clearly points
See Hdt.
Phil.
i*' 8^*;
Xen. An.
I";
Mem.
i.
3';
Plat. Protag.
323D;
Prov. 15"
4 Mac. 5
8'
12D; Legg. Ill 687D; Lk. 24" Rom. i" i Tim. 6* Tit. 3'.
The verb
(Dem.
144
94>9 291"),
GALATIANS
"to envy" (Dem. 464"), "to bewitch" (Theocr. 5" 6; 34 [926 b'-'j; Herodian 2. 4") is used in the Lxx and
2^^*-
Apocr. (Deut.
witch."
ing,
"
Sir. i4> )
loc. cit., the meaning "to beFor the evidence that the possibility of one person bewitchexercising a spell upon another was matter of current belief both
HDB, arts. "Magic," esp. vol. Ill, and "Sorcery," vol. IV, p. 605b; M. and M. Voc. s. v. See also Ltft. ad loc; Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 253Concerning the 293; Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen, pp. 23^. practice of magic arts in general, cf. <fap[i.a-A.ia, chap. 5" Acts 19^', and Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 273 jf., 323/., 352 jf. It would be overpressing the facts to infer from Paul's use of this word that he necessarily believed in the reality of magical powers, and still more so to assume that he supposed the state of mind of the Galatians to be the result of such arts. It is more probable that the word, while carrying a reference to magical arts, was used by him tropically, as we ourselves use the word "bewitch," meaning "to pervert," "to confuse the mind." On olq xax' 6?6aX[i,o6(; cf. Aristoph. Ran. 625, Yva aot xax' dipOaXti-oOt; Xifti, and chap. 2": xaxd: xp6ffti)xov aSxa) dcvxIaTiQV. IIpoYpacfXi) occurs in Greek writers in three senses: (i) "to write beforehand," the xpo- being temporal (Rom. 15* Eph. 3'); (2) "to write publicly," "to register" (Jude 4, but by some assigned to the previous The third meaning does sense); (3) "to write at the head of the list." not occur in biblical writers and may be dismissed as wholly inapproamong
Gentiles and Jews, see
p. 208a,
To
take
it
excluded by
xa-c'
to take
it
in this sense
is
and
refer it to Paul's
own
presenta-
forbidden
by the inappropriateness
if
xpo- be
itself.
taken temporally,
commentators on this passage give to the word the sense "to paint publicly," "to depict before, or openly." So Th. Jowett, and
Sief.,
et al.
Many
deW.
meaning rests not upon extant instances of xpoYp(i(po) in this sense, but upon the usage of the simple ypi^cpt^ in the sense "to paint" and the appropriateness of the meaning "to deBut in view of the absence of vouchers pict publicly" to this context. even the instances of Yp(iq5Ci> in the sense "to paint" for this meaning are, so far at least as cited by lexicographers or commentators on this passage, much earlier than the N. T. period and of the fact that taking xposyp- in the meaning "to write publicly," "to placard," yields a meaning more suitable to laTaupa)[x^vo<; (see below), it is best to accept this latter meaning for this passage, and to understand the apostle as
for this
The argument
in,
145
announcement or placarding of Jesus before them. 'EaTaupwtxivoq means "having been crucified," and doubtless in the sense of "having been put to death on the cross"; the perfect participle expresses an existing (in this case permanent) result of the past fact of crucifixion. To express the idea "in the act of being crucified" would
require a present participle,
afiaxed to the cross,"
if
and probably
For while the verb aTaupoto may be used of the affixing to the cross (Mt. 27'), yet it seems usually to refer to the putting to death on the cross as a whole (Acts 2^ 4', etc.) and the participle eaxauptotxevoq is used in N. T. of Jesus, not as having been afiixed to the cross and
hanging there, but invariably of him as one who was put to death on the cross, and thenceforth, though risen from the dead, the crucified
one.
Mk.
i6 i Cor.
i"
2.
The
and
in favour of the
announcement, as
it
stake, used
ground for a foundation (Hdt. 5"). cxaupdto used in Thuc. 7. 25% meaning "to fence with stakes," first appears in Polybius with reference to a means of inflicting death (i. 86*),
for fencing {Od. 14") or driven into the
where
it
dead body,
Thuc.
i.
5. 54^; 8. 23'),
which
is its
meaning
9^*, etc.;
In Esth.
34 (Swete
i6'8) Jt is
upon a gallows
473C; Xen. An. 3. i^^ used of the hanging of Haman In 7" to be fifty cubits high.
this
hanging as a method of
was practised by various ancient nations, e. g., the Assyrians (cf. the Lexicons of Delitzsch and Muss-Arnolt under Zagapu and Zagipu; Schrader, Keilinschriflen desA.T.^, pp. 387/.; Code of Hammurabi, Statute 153, in Winckler, Die Gesetze Hammurabis in Umschrift u. Uebersetzung, p. 45, or R. F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi,
body
of a criminal,
p. 55); the
Egyptians
it is
{cf.
Gen.
40^"^
Jos. Ant.
2.
73
[5^]);
the Persians
(cf.
Among the Jews the bodies of certain criminals is referred to. were after death hanged upon a tree or impaled (Josh. 8^^ lo^* 2 Sam. 4>*), but there is no sufficient evidence that these methods were used for
method
inflicting death, 2
Sam.
10
146
sion.
GALATIANS
Hanging
2'";
in the
modern
is
immediate
death by strangulation,
referred to as a
Hdt.
Thuc.
381; 2
known
in ancient times as
i.
Crucifixion,
living, to
e.,
Sam. 17" Tob. 31 a means of inflicting the death penalty. the affixing of the body of the criminal, while still
an upright post (with or without a crosspiece) to which the body was nailed or otherwise fastened, death resulting from pain and
hunger after hours of suffering, was not a Jewish method of punishment; though employed by Alexander Jannaeus, Jos. Bell. i. 17 (4'), it was inflicted upon Jews, as a rule, only by the Romans. With
what nation or
alty originated
in
is
what region
Diod.
b Be ^acriXeCu;
ioi)q
Romans
of
the later days of the republic and early days of the empire ascribed
its
origin
Among
inally)
nals.
Punic Carthage, but perhaps without good evidence. crucifixion was for a time (but perhaps not origpractised only in the case of slaves and the worst of crimito
the
Romans
When
the use of
it
especially in the
provinces {Jos. Ant. 17. 295 [iqi"]; Bell. S- 449-51 [n']) to others than these, it retained the idea of special disgrace.
The word
through
its
ciocupoq,
nate what
we now know
I
was on the
cross
N. T. the word ^6Xov is still and through the fact that it that Jesus suffered death, came to be employed by
Pet.
2"^*;
Gal. 3"),
metonymy
for the
it
by
association the
men which
that
it is
achieved for
men.
See chap.
5'' 6'* i
Cor.
i'*
i^".
On
in particular, see
s. v.;
Zockler,
Das Kreuz
W. W. Seymour, The Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, esp. the bibliography, pp. XXIXXX; the articles "Cross" and "Hanging" in Encyc. Bibl. and HDB,
Christi ; Fulda,
die Kreuzigung
in
PRE., and
in
Wetzer and
gi8
ff.;
Mommsen, Romisches
Strafrecht, pp.
"Crux"
On
the archae-
ology of the cross Zockler refers especially to Lipsius, De Cruce, Antwerp, 1595; Zestermann, Die hildliche Darstellung des Kreuzes u. der Kreuzigung Jesu Christi historisch entwickelt, Leipzig, 1867; Degen, Das Kreuz als Strafwerkzeug u. Strafe der Alten, Aachen, 1873; the Code of
(in
Ill,
1-2
147
Plates B2,
the
2.
acf)
vrvevfjia
i^ uKorj^ TrtVTeo)?;
a hearing of faith?"
the Galatians.
The
implication of fwvov
be a decisive argument. For fiavOdvo) in the general sense here illustrated, "to ascertain," "to fmd out," see Acts 23^7 Col. i\ On eg epyo^v
itself
vojxov,
on
No'/xo?
and note on
2^^.
a/cor]
Tr/o-reoj? is
detached note on
God
(see
meanings on
is
p. 490).
The
marked the beginning of their Christian lives; cf. evap^dfievot That the apostle has espev.3 and see Rom. 8^3 2 Cor. 1^2 55. cially, though notnecessarilyexclusively,in mind the charismatic manifestations of the Spirit evidenced by some outward sign, such as speaking with tongues or prophesying, is indicated by
the reference to Swafxet^ in v.
JJ
16, 17
&.
S^''-^^
10"''-^^
jgi-6
Cor. 12^-1^
cifcorj'^
The two
vo/jLov
and ef
TTtcrTeoj?
and by this question Paul brings the issue between the two contrasted principles of religious life to the The answer which the experience of the test of experience.
the whole epistle,
was
The
testi-
mony
and
on
have preached the same gospel (see and 2^), presented his message to the Gentiles wholly divorced from any insistence upon the acceptance of 0. T.
i^^
teachings
as
such,
is
of
capital
also
Thes.
i^*^)
and
148
as showing
apostle,
GALATIANS
how completely he had early in his career as an and not simply when forced to it by controversy, repuavoTjTOL
iare;
evap^dfievoL
Trveviiari
vvv
aap/cl
Spirit,
iinTeXclaOe;
are ye
"Are ye
so foolish? having
begun with
is
now
.
The
. . .
antithesis
twofold:
beginning
recalls
completing; spirit
flesh.
ivap^d/jLevoL irv.
eka^.
ttv.,
by
Apparently
is
it
and "flesh"
Trvevfia
at this point a
more
effective
On
the
meaning
486 _^.,
detached note, pp. especially the discussion of the use of these terms in
of the
o"a/o|, see
words
and
chap. 5
is
no objection to
for in
view
aim
of the judaisers
was
to
would be naturally taken by them as referring to this, and no other meaning would be likely to occur to them. That aapKi has a relation to ep'ya vo/jlov in that circumcision falls in the category of "works of law" is, of course, obvious, but a apicC is
not, therefore, to be taken as equivalent to that phrase or as
men
and
(2)
because there
is
The absence
them a
qualitative force,
both 77 v. and (rap. and heightens the contrast beof salvation: (divine)
is
Spirit,
and
(material) flesh.
That
irvevpia
to be taken in a wider
Ill,
3-4
149
sense, as including
the sphere of operation, is possible, but improbable in view of the nearness of to irvevaa with its express Trveviian and aapKL are doubtreference to the divine Spirit.
the
spirit as
less
human
is,
however, no objection to
though the
flesh
is,
On
N. T.
Ivap^.
and
IxitsX-
cf.
Phil.
i.
iiziizk-
occurs
i'
elsewhere in
S^ 9) in
in the active
(Rom.
is
1528 2
Cor.
71 S"-
" Phil,
in
i
Heb.
the
and
which
ad loc).
The Lxx
But the existence of a middle usage in Greek writers (Plat. Phil. 27C; Xen. Mem. 4. 8; Polyb. i. 40"; 2. 5810- 5. io8 cited by Sief.) and the antithesis of evap^- a word of active force, favours taking ixiisk- also as a middle form with active sense, "to finish, to complete."
4.
et <ye
Kal
el/cr).
"Did ye
suffer
If it really is to
be in vain."
A referan appeal
as Christians,
and
no
in effect
avail.
them not
is,
The word
eTrddere
term, not defining whether the experiences referred to were el' 76 Kal elKy shows that the question painful or otherwise,
whether these experiences are to be in vain is still in doubt, depending on whether the Galatians actually yield to the
persuasion of the judaisers or not.
alternation of hope
Cf.,
as illustrating the
4^^- 20 510^
and
y^
need not be
fulfilled.
icaaxo) is in itself of neutral significance,
v/ell off,"
The verb
e3 Tcacy/stv
"to experience,"
meaning "to be
or xaxa xaaxetv, "to suffer ills"; yet icdicxw has in usage so far a predilection for use in reference to
ills
suffer"
(ills),
and
ISO
There
(i.
GALATIANS
is
Qs^^
uTco^vfijai
^jlev,
6eou) xal
TCT}>vr/,tov
Y^voivTo,
to
indicate that
its
employed
in a
good
sense,
but
it
is
reheved of
fftwv,
ambiguity by the
closely following
%ri'k!.YM^^
eOspve-
Since there is nothing if not, indeed, in part by e^ aixou. a benein the context of the Galatian passage distinctly to suggest more usual adverse ficial meaning, the presumption is in favour of the
meaning; and this would undoubtedly be the meaning conveyed to the Galatians if they had in fact been exposed to severe sufferings in connection with their acceptance of the gospel. On the other hand, if they had suffered no such things this meaning would evidently be
excluded, and the
word would
spoken
of in vv.
'
people of If we adopt the opinion that the letter was addressed to southern Galatia, we may find in Acts 14" an intimation of persecutions
refer; but or other like sufferings to which the present passage might no evidence that they were of sufficient severity to merit the term If the churches were in northern Galatia we are unable to say ToaauTa. whether they had suffered or not. For lack of knowledge of the circumstances, therefore, we must probably forego a decision of the for question whether the experiences were pleasant or painful, and sense, or, this very reason understand the term xaGeTe in a neutral more exactly, recognise that the term is for us ambiguous, though it
could hardly have been so to Paul and the Galatians. This leaves the meaning of e(xf) also somewhat in doubt. If the xocjauTa are the
preaching of the gospel and the gift of the Spirit, then zlrJn means "without effect" (as in 4"); if the reference is to persecutions it probimpliably means "needlessly," "without good cause" (Col. 2'), the
cation being that
will
preached they if they give up the gospel which Paul have abandoned Christ (5'-^ and might just as well have remained persecutions were as they were (note the implication of 4"); or if the acceptinstigated by the Jews, that they might have escaped them by point of ing Judaism, with its legalism, which they are now on the
taking on.
Toaa-jTa in a large preponderance of cases means in the plural "so 12", (see L. & S., Th.) and, with the possible exception of Jn.
many"
is,
however, possible (see Preusch. s. v.), and in view of the fact that appeal to the greatness than is manifestly more natural for Paul to it perhaps simply to the number of the experiences of the Galatians is
to be adopted here.
Sief.
e?xfi efxij a reason for taking ToaaOra possible, but not as a question but an exclamation, which is, of course, is, in any not necessary because of the conditional clause; for this
finds
in
s!
Ill,
4-5
151
mentally case, not a true protasis of a preceding apodosis, but is to be attached to some such supplied clause as, "which I am justified in the saying." The dictum that bX ys introduces an assumption that
writer believes to be true (Vigerus, ed.
is
Hermann,
p. 831, cited
by
Th.),
not regarded by recent authorities as true for classical Greek (see does L. & S. sub. -{i I 3, Kuhner-Gerth, II i, pp. 177 /), and certainly not correspond to the usage of N. T. writers. Where the assumption one that is regarded as fulfilled (Rom. 5" 2 Cor. 5' Eph. 4^0, it is the
is
context that conveys the implication. In Col. i" there is no such See p. 561, fn. 6, impUcation, and perhaps not in Eph. 3^ and Ell. Ltft. Sief. In the present passage the conditional clause must be understood v/ithout impUcation as to its fulfilment, since the fears context, indeed the whole letter, shows that while the apostle
WM.
zoaaoxa xa6eiv
'
themselves that the Galatians are about to turn back and so prove very appeal seekeixfj, yet he hoped, and was in this
ing, to avert this disaster.
5. 6
ovv eiTLXOpri^oiv
v/jllv
^ ef a/co^9
"He
therefore that
suppUed the Spirit richly to you, and wrought miracles among you, did he do these things on ground of works of law or of
a hearing
of
faith?"
2,
This sentence in
is
effect
repeats the
question of v.
referring
doubtless to be understood as
the Galatians in connection
to
the experiences of
The two
participles,
eiTLXopvy^^ and
to
evepycov, limited
by one
the
the same person, and describe related activities affecting It is obvious, thereev vfilv). same persons {v/jlIv
.
fore,
that the two parts of the phrase are to be regarded as mutually interpretative. This, in turn, impHes that the apostle
has in mind chiefly the charismatic manifestation of the Spirit III B. i(a), p. (see detached note on Uvev/jia and ^ap^, I
itself in
tions (see
Cor.
62
1210 2
Cor.
and
word
must also be etc.). Lk. lo^^ Acts hvvafjLL^ Mk. in the view of the apostle it was one Spirit borne in mind that that produced alike the outward x^^P^^t^^'^^ and the inward moral fruit of the Spirit (chap. 522. 23), and hence that the latter
Yet
it
though not included in 8um/At9 is not necessarily excluded from the thought expressed by e7rt%o/3r/7&)i/ viilv to irveufxa;
152
the words ivepyMv
.
. .
GALATIANS
v/jlIv
may
i
ev vfuv is
a designation of
cially
God
(c/.
Thes. 4^
Cor.
1^^,
Rom. 5^, where the idea of abundant supply, pressed by iirixopvy^^, is conveyed by i/cKe^vrai).
omitted and
in
1^5 also.
left to
be supplied in thought as in
2^
and probably
Bvi>dfjiL<;
referring to outward deeds, ev vfilv natumeaning "among you" {cf. on eV rot? eOveaLv,
2^);
hvvdiiei^ cipally
j2io. 28.
must be supposed to have been wrought not prinby Paul but by the Galatians themselves, as i Cor. 29 imply was the case among the Corinthians. 2 Cor.
12^2
yet probably not in the sense that he only wrought them, but
that the
SvvdfjLec<i
were in some
The phrases
e^ epyoov vofiov
and
of course, to
supply abundantly."
of providing a
In view of
Phil,
2 Pet.
i,
dpexiQV,
and
i"
extxopTQYfaq
dance.
extxop-
".
From
these participles,
unexpressed verbs of the sentence are to be supplied, but they afford no clue to the tense of such verbs. To this the only guide is the fact that the apostle is still apparently speaking
evepy., the
and
2.
also,
123), in effect equivalent to nouns, "the supplier," "the worker," or progressive presents, and in that case participles of identical action, since they refer to the same action as the unexpressed
evTQpyrjje.
The
may
be either general
principal verbs
{BMT
120).
The
than the aorist shows that the apostle has in mind an experience extended enough to be thought of as in progress, but not that it is in
progress at the time of writing (Beet), or that the participle
is
an
imperfect participle
(Sief.; cf.
BMT
127).
in, 5-6
2.
153
Abraham,
refuting the
Argument from
formity
(3-')to
the faith of
law could
men become
sons of
Abraham
early-
ment
from
this
Abraham
in
it.
In
they be justified
^As
^^
Abraham was justified by faith, and that so also must who would inherit the blessing promised to
believed
his seed.
Abraham
to
eousness.^'
men
of
Abraham.
^And
the
God would
announced
the gospel to
Abraham
blessed."
(believing)
6.
19
beforehand, saying,
"In
men
Abraham.
rw
0a>,
BtKatoavvTjv.^'
was
The
To
this
answer he
attaches a comparison between the faith of the Galatians and that of Abraham. The next two chapters, in v/hich the argument revolves largely around Abraham and Abraham's sons (see ^7, 8. 14, 16, 18, 29 422-81)^ show that this is no mere incidental illustration,
but
fills
The
fact itself
what an examination of the argument confirms, that Paul is here replying to an argument of his opponents. This argument, v/e may safely conjecture, was based on Gen. chaps. 12 and 17, especially 17^'^-^'', and most especially v.^"*, and was
suggests,
to the effect that according to O. T.
in
Abraham, and
so in the
154
messianic salvation that
v/as not circumcised.
GALATIANS
is
it,
who
Neither the usage of SiKaLoavvrj (see deAiKaLoavvT) and AiKaioo), pp. 469^.), below), is decisiv^e as between the
tached note on
At'/cato?,
et? (see
two meanings: (i) "it was attributed to him as right conduct," "he was accounted to have acted righteously," and (2) "it was reckoned to him as ground of acceptance." The general
i. e.,
the forensic aspect, acceptance with God, decides for the latter
meaning.
Abraham no one
(Gen. 17";
cf.
is
acceptable to
God who
not circumcised
Abraham
himself
it
was
his faith
AoYf'^o[xat is
to calculate, to
deem,
Ttvt-
To
Lev.
(Dem.
264'*;
yst'si.
was expressed by
tout(o tg)
ifjixipa
i.
2", \iiav
a[jL?>to
In the
Lxx
in
cl.
'kofi'C.o'^ai
is
the
translation of 2vn,
"to
In N. T.
Gr.,
it is
used with
much
the
same
varia-
meanings as
one"
is
and the idea "to credit or charge to (Rom. 4*' 2 Cor. 51'; cf. Prov.
17^8). "To reckon a thing or person to be this or that," or "to account a thing as having a certain value," is expressed as it is in the Lxx, who translate the Heb. S 2'^n by Xoy- elq. The examples show that
this
form of expression
may have
Thus
in
i
either of the
above-named meanaSr'fjv
ings;
this or that," or
tiq
tcc
so also
Rom.
Acts
2^*:
is
iTzayjeklaq
.
\o'{i'C,e'zai
dq
ax^pfxa.
But
in
in
ig":
AtvSuveuet
lepbv slq
elq
oiOev XoYtaGi^vat,
xeptTOiJL-?]v
and
Rom.
latter
oOx
yj
ixpo^uaxfa
aixoO
XoytcO-rjjsTat,
the
appar-
Lam.
4^
Hos.
S^^
Wisd.
See also Gen. 1515 Ps. 105 (106)" Isa. 291' 32' 2i 31^ g* Even in this second class Jas. 2^^.
word
itself
ni, 6-7
thought
is
15s
conveyed it must be by the limitations of the word, not by the word itself. There being in the present passage no such limitations, the idea of estimation contrary to fact can not legitimately be discovered in the passage. Nor can it be imported into this passage from Rom.
p. 470.
4.^'^,
7. TLP(0(TKTe
apa
otl
ol
ifc
padp,.
"Know
men
of
faith,
these are
sons of
Abraham."
its
here not
specifically faith in
Jesus Christ, but, as the absence of the article suggests, and the
context with
in
hand
to
Abraham's
in a sense
faith
God and on
and
broad
enough to include both these forms of it. Here, as in Rom. f^^-, Paul distinctly implies the essential oneness of faith, towards whatever expression or revelation of God it is directed. The
preposition
e/c
do not owe their existence to faith but source of character and standing, existence after a certain manner. The expression
oi
they
m 7ri(JTea)9,
therefore,
means
" those
who
is
believe
and whose
men
of
whose
life
faith
the determinative
Here appears for the first time the expression "sons of Abraham," which with its synonyme, "seed of Abraham," is, as pointed out above, the centre of the argument in chaps. 3 and 4. apa marks this statement as a logical consequence of the preceding. Abraham believed God, and was on that ground accepted by God; therefore, the sons of Abraham are men of
faith.
The
sentence
itself
of
Abraham"
by
is
The context
it
Paul means those who are heirs of the promise made to Abra-
ham, and
29).
The unexpressed premise of this argument is that men become God and heirs of the promise on the same basis on which Abraham himself was accepted. The ground of this premise in Paul's mind v/as doubtless his conviction that God deals with all men on
acceptable to
~
156
God
GALATIANS
is
the same moral basis; in other words, that there sons with
(chap. 2;
c/.
no respect
of per-
Rom. 2"
is
3"-
"
Sir.
35").
The
expressed
who put
forth the
argument to which
Those was an answer would have sons (or seed) of Abraham, and
have denied the expressed premise. They had probably reached their conclusion, that to be sons of Abraham men must be circumcised, by ignoring faith as the basis of Abraham's justification, and appealing
to the express assertion of scripture that the seed of
Abraham must
be circumcised, and that he who will not be circumcised shall be cut The off from God's people, having broken his covenant (Gen. 17''")apostle in turn ignores their evidence,
fact the
is.
In
whole passage. Gen. chaps. 12-17, furnishes a basis for both The difference between Paul and his opponent is lines of argument. not in that one appealed to scripture and the other rejected it, but that
each selected his scripture according to the bent
of his
own
prejudice
it.
Ramsay's explanation of
Gentiles
is
v.
and
among the
therefore
they must be his sons, since only a son can inherit property, ignores
all
is,
is here answering judaistic arguments, and moving in the atmosphere not of Greek but of Old Testament thought, and goes far afield to import into the passage the farfetched notion of faith as an inheritable property of Abraham. See his Com. on Gal. pp. 338 J".
therefore,
SONS OF ABRAHAM.
It has
this
phrase
Paul
is
have
first
ducing the term to the Galatians and founding on it an argument intended to appeal to their unprejudiced minds. It is in favour of this
left
it
was Paul's habit to commend Christ to the Gentiles either on O. T. grounds in general or in particular on the ground that through the acceptance of Jesus they would become members of the Jewish nation.
See,
e. g.,
Thes., esp.
i'"!" i
Cor.
2^
Phil. 3'.
There
is,
ment
is
in
Rom.
But
in
forth)
Ill,
157
case of
Abraham
there
is
much
and chap.
God
its
place of peculiar privilege, but finds fulfilment in the elect people, whether Jews or Gentiles. Moreover, precisely in respect to the Galatians do the testimonies of vv. ^'^ and " " of this chapter, and 5*"*, indicate with special clearness that Paul's preaching to them and
basis
Christ
crucified, faith in
An
argument here
expressions,
examination of chaps. 3 and 4, moreover, reveals that Paul's Thus the recurrent is mainly of the nature of rebuttal.
"blessing of
ham"
seed"
(3),
"sons of Abraham" (3O, "blessed with faithful AbraAbraham" {3^*), "the covenant" and "the
"Abraham's seed" (3"), all of which have their basis and 17 (cf. Gen. 12^ ly^-^o), and the express quotation in 3' of the words of Gen. 12', all combine to indicate that the O. T. background of the discussion is largely that furnished by Gen. chaps. 12, 17. But if we turn to these chapters it is at once clear not only that they furnish no natural basis for a direct argument to the effect that the Gentiles may participate in the blessing of the Abrahamic salvation without first becoming attached to the race of his lineal descendants, but that they furnish the premises for a strong argument for the Thus in Gen. ly^'^ there is position which Paul is here combating. repeated mention of a covenant between God and Abraham, an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed throughout their generations, a covenant of blessing on God's part and obligation on their part, which he and his seed after him are to keep throughout their generation, and it is said: "This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee; every male among you
{3^^'"),
in Gen. 12
shall
be circumcised"
(v.^")
"and
V.'',
it
shall
be a token of a covenant
me"
(v.")-
is born in the house and to him that is bought money of any foreigner, and v." declares that "the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall
be cut
indeed,
off
from
(so
his people
he
hath broken
all
my
covenant."
In
i2,
it is
stated that in
Abraham
be blessed
nothing in
racial relation to
thought.
Indeed,
but only a reasonable adherence to the obvious meaning of the passage, to find in these chapters the doctrine that God's covenant of blessing
15S
GALATIANS
was with Abraham and his seed, that none could be included in that covenant save those who being of the blood of Abraham were sealed
by circumcision, or who being adopted into the nation from without also received the seal of circumcision, and that any who refused thus to receive circumcision could have no part in the people of God
as his seed
enant."
"blessed
"The covenant with Abraham," "the with faithful Abraham" {cf. Jub. i7
all
"in Abraham
of
blessed"
judaiser's
these are apparently the premises and stock phrases the argument which was doubtless added, we can
to
as
see
from Gal. $^^-, the obvious inference that to enjoy these blessings one must be circumcised, as Gen. lyi^- says. To the judaiser, v/hose arguments Paul is answering, "seed of Abraham" meant, as to the Pharisaic author of the book of Jubilees (see chap. 15, esp. v."), the circum-
Abraham, with whom might also be included the circumcised proselyte; and to these he limited the blessing of the covenant with Abraham, and so in effect the blessing of God.
cised descendant of
That
evident
all this
is
also
{cf. 51-").
this, he was aiming from the same source from which it was drawn. This he does by appeal to Gen. 15', "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness," which though it lay between the two passages which they had used, we may be sure the judaisers had not
to refute
quoted.
On
phrases, "seed of
all
and condition.
The
Abraham"
if
for
"seed of
Abraham"
contributes
somewhat
to
the former
phrase, which
is not in Genesis, is not original with Paul {cf. Jub. 15'"). Affirming on the basis of Gen. 15' that the characteristic thing about
Abraham
in a sense
is
his faith,
of
Abraham"
by no means foreign to Semitic use of the term "son" as meaning those who walk in his footsteps (Rom. 412), those who are like him {cf. sons of God in Mt. 5^ Rom. 8i<), he maintains that the men of faith are sons of Abraham. The various arguments by which
Abraham
but by
the apostle endeavours to substantiate this ethical definition of sons of as against the physical definition of the judaiser, and in
general to
show that men obtain God's blessing not by works of law, be found in this and the following chapter. As concerns the apostle's method of refuting the argument of his
faith, are to
it is
opponents,
clear that
m, 7-8
exegesis of Genesis, chap.
basis his opponents
159
Aside from the fact that on such a 17. must have won, such an argument would scarcely
Instead, while retaining the
have appealed
terminology of the Abrahamic narrative of Genesis, as the exigencies of the situation and the necessity of answering the arguments of his
opponents compelled him to do, he makes his appeal to the assertions of Gen. 156 that it was faith that was accounted by God as righteousness,
and
of acceptance with
God.
opponents on
Instead he
and underlying question, what is the real nature of God's demands on men and the basis of acceptance with him, contending that not by the fulfilment of legal statutes but by faith does a man become acceptable to God. How he would have dealt with one who admitting this central position should still have asked, "But is not circumcision nevertheless required by God?" these chapters do
discusses the larger
not show.
less
explicit teaching of
it is
Gen.
17,
he neverthebut that
cir-
this
O. T. statutes as such, shows that he had found some means of discovering on the basis of experience what portions of 0. T. were still of
value for the religious
to be necessary for this purpose,
specifically called
But what kind of experience he conceived and whether that kind of experience by him revelation was requisite, is not by this paslife.
sage indicated. 8.
irpoiSovaa Se
rj
ypacfirj
on
etc
^0? TrpoevrjyyeXioraro
(Tol
tw 'A^paa/x on ^^'EvevXoyijdrjaovTai
nrdvTa ra eOvj]."
"And
God
would
tions
on ground
announced the
all
gospel to
Abraham
forth
the na-
be blessed."
in
This
that
is
ment put
as
it is
by the
inasmuch
Abraham
must be in Abraham, i. e., incorpoby circumcision. Appealing to the fact that Abraham was justified by faith (the particle Be connects this V. with v.^ itself deduced from v.^), he finds the ground and explanation of the promise that the Gentiles would
Gentiles to be blessed
l6o
GALATIANS
by
He
thus converts
the very oracle which his opponents have cited (Gen. 12^) into
an announcement, in advance, of
justify the Gentiles
his
own
is
doctrine that
God
will
by
faith.
This
obviously an interpreta-
print below.
'H
Ypaq)-^
(sing.),
3" and
is
cf.
is
no
is
The passage
is,
referred to
Gen.
The
participle
foresaw."
expressed in the
scripture in question.
Xzghq
Xdyoc;.
On ex xbxewq Btxatol, see detached notes on n{aTt<; and notes on 2'^^^-. Btxaiot is a present for a future (as is demanded by xpoiSoOaa) in indirect discourse. The choice of the present may be due in a measure to the feeling that what is here stated
and
Aixaidto
as then future
all
is,
time,
xd:
sOvtj
clusively, since it is
God's rule of action in "the Gentiles," not "the nations" inthe former whose justification is under discussion.
clearly
Had
he meant to employ an inclusive phrase covering the Gentiles, he must have taken over the full phrase xdcvxa xa I'Ovtq from the quotation, where it has the more inclusive sense, eOvYj meaning "nations."
xpoeuTQYYsXfaaxo, found neither elsewhere in
N. T. nor
in the
Lxx
or
Apocr., but in Philo, Opif. mund. 34 (9); Mutat. nom. 158 (29); Schol. Soph. Track. 335 {cf. Th. s. v., and Sief. ad loc), is probably to be taken
accords with the usual N. T. usage of eCaYY^^tov and its cognates, and with the fact that what Paul here represents as fore-announced, 2xt,
etc., is
him the
distinctive
of
the eu3tYY^^'v.
The quotation
substitutes
izii^xot.
follows the
Lxx
Gen.
of
Gen.
12',
al ipuXai
xa
e'BvT)
of
18'",
SOviq,
which Paul desires because of its current For a similar reason xt5<; y^<J found in
violence
is,
both passages
is
omitted.
No
is
But
in follow-
with the passive eveuXoYTjOi^aovxat the apostle has probably missed the meaning of the Hebrew, which is, "In thee shall all
ing the
Lxx
i.
e.,
shall
make
thee the
"May God
bless us as
he blessed Abra-
Ill,
8
its
i6i
causal, basal sense,
it
ham."
He
doubtless takes ev in
is
meaning "on
as having refin
By
connection with
conferred on
all
it
by
faith a blessing is
he believed and had his faith uncircumcised and, therefore, There is no reference to that aspect of the matter. is doubtful. Paul's discovery in the language of Gen. 123 of the fact that God
justify the Gentiles
them also faith is possible. Whether mind here the fact that Abraham, when accounted as righteousness, was himself himself a "Gentile" (as in Rom. 4"- ")
will
on ground of faith, and that, therefore, this statement is a pre-evangelic announcement of the gospel (of justification by faith) is not, of course, based on a verbal exegesis of the sentence The language itself and alone as it stands either in Heb. or Lxx. will sustain neither his view nor that which we have above supposed the judaisers to have found in it. But the effort to discover a more definite meaning than the words themselves conveyed was on both The passage meant to the original author more sides legitimate.
than
words simply as words expressed. The phrase Iv aoi, in para condensed and ambiguous expression which calls for closer The judaiser doubtless found the basis of his view in a definition. Paul may have genealogical sense of ev, reinforced by Gen. ly'-'*. based his interpretation in part on the context of Gen. 12'. In its refits
ticular, is
erence to Abraham's response to the divine command to leave his father's house and go out into another land (see Heb. ii for evidence
that this act of
cf.
Abraham was
in Paul's
v. 9 for
by
God thou
lished in
and blessing are upon those that believe." If this principle is estabAbraham's case it follows net only that the blessing that the Gentiles are to receive is divine acceptance, but that such acceptance Secondly, he may have found in the fact that is on ground of faith.
the blessing was extended to
it
all
was not to be bestowed on the basis of the law, since the Gentiles were not under the law. Yet this reasoning would be precarious, since was easy to reply that Gen. 17 made it clear that the nations could partake in the Abrahamic blessing only in case they joined the seed Thirdly, he may have reasoned that of Abraham by circumcision.
the oracle ought to be interpreted in view of the fact, to him well established by his own observation, that God was accepting Gentiles
it
on the basis of faith without works of law in general or circumcision in This consideration doubtless had great weight with him, particular.
II
62
GALATIANS
and was probably the decisive one. It must be remembered, of course, is not so much proving by original argument that his doctrine is sustained by scripture as refuting the argument of his opponents
that he that the scripture sustains their view.
9. (ocre ol
i/c TricrTeo)?
men
Abraham." A definite statement of what Paul wishes prove by his previous argument. The emphasis is on ol
Trtb-reco?
vo/jlov,
of
whom
here says
is
doubt-
opponents.
Note the
and comis
v.
"Blessed with
Abraham"
clearly
By
word
TTLCTTa)
{cf.
Jub. if^ ig^-^) the apostle reminds his readimportant thing about Abraham is the fact of
stress
his faith.
No undue
must be
It
it
laid
may have
was, in
own
thought.
It
is
who
the
Abraham must do
and
on
in that
present,
to the
is less
same
and because
to
The
is
adjective
%\.<zxQ> is
manifestly to be taken in
.
its
active sense, as
required
by
ext'cTeucsv of v.
See Th.
s. v. 2
and
esp.
Eph.
its
i*.
The
meaning,
The
translation,
is
ham,"
in
this word and ex xfaxeax;. "Those that believe are blessed with believing Abrasome respects better but does not do full justice to ol ex
v.'.
xtaxeo)?.
See note on
Ill,
8-IO
is
163
fixed
3.
under
men
are justified by
faith,
and from
(3^"").
The
of the
apostle
now
camp
enemy, contending on the basis of passages from Deut. and Lev. that those who claim on the basis of scripture that justification is by law must on the same basis admit that the
actual sentence of law
is
is
scripture itself
man
shall
hve by
faith,
and
declar-
ing that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, in order that on the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham (not
by law but by
^^For as
is written,
^^
faith).
many
For
it
Cursed
all the
things
law
to
do them."
evident,
^^And that no
because,
man
is justified
is
"The
us
righteous
man
law
"He
from
that doeth
them shall
live
in them.''
^^Christ delivered
it is
written,
"Cursed
is every
Hhat upon
the Gentiles
might come the blessing of Abraham in Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
10. ''Ocrot 'yap
e^
epyccv
vojiov
elalv
vtto
Kardpav
elcriv^
"For
as
many
By
a new weapon for the refutation of his opponents, an argument e contrario by which he seeks to prove that instead of men being blessed by coming
this sentence the apostle introduces
under law they must, according to their own premises, come under a curse. There might have been prefixed to it the words of 421 "Tell m.e, ye that desire to be under law, do ye not hear
:
the
law?"
The word
v6p.ov
is,
v6/jLov,
on
2^^),
and oaoL
e^
164
ep'yuiv vofjLov
GALATIANS
are not 01 iroLTjral vofxov, of
whom
Paul says in
standing
Rom.
2^3
men whose
and character proceed from (e/c) works of legalistic obedience vtto Kardpav is a qualitative phrase, equivalent to to statutes,
[eTTtj/cara/oaTo?.
While
this
man who
to
has
will
commend him
(c/.
God
2^^),
yet
it is
most im-
not what
it is
This appears clearly from the fact that the sentence by which
below)
is
own
judgment of men, but the verdict of the law. The curse of which the verse speaks is not the curse of God, but as Paul
expressly calls
yefypairiaL
it
'yap
on
^'^^TTHcardpaTO^
7rd<;
6?
ovk
efifievei
Trdatv
aurd.'^
roL<;
yeypafifievoL^ ev
it is
tm ^l^Xico rod
is
"For
all
written, Cursed
not in
do them."
The quotation
is
from Deut.
272^,
with variations
the omission of
viz.,
dvOpwiro^ after Tra?, and of ev (which, however, many Western and Syrian authorities insert) before irdaiv and the substitution of yeypafJLiJLU0L<; ev tw ^l/3\iq) rod v6/jlov for XdyoL^ rod vo/iov rovrov, and of avrd for avroik. The unexpressed premise of
the argument, necessary to
make
this
ceding proposition,
is
the things that are written in the book of the law to do them.
This
is
Rom.
less
an ethical, affirmation; but the failure which the apostle here assumes may neverthebe precisely in the moral requirements of the law.
is
It
of capital
m,
tie's
lo-ii
165
express his
own
viz., stated negatively, implies the corresponding affirmative, written in the that he who faithfully performs all the things
book
of the
law
lives thereby,
v.^^:
and
"He
that doeth
them
shall live
That
men, Paul expressly denies both directly and indirectly: directly in 2^^; indirectly in the immediately following v., as also before
in that he declares in vv.
^^-^^
the subsequent lished under Abraham was not displaced by law, law having for its function not to justify incoming of
men, but to increase transgression. It is necessary, therefore, throughout the passage, to distinguish between the verdicts of law and the judgments of God, and to recognise that the former attitude now or are, for Paul, not judgments which reflect God's or under any circumstances, but those which the at any time those of the law legalist must, to his own undoing, recognise as
interpreted as he interprets
legalism he
must impute
to
and which on the basis of his God. Those that are of works of the law, which falls on all who do
it,
This being so, Paul argues, its requirements. assumption of the legalist that the law is the basis of the the acdivine judgment involves the conclusion that all men are
cursed,
and must be
false.
On
the
harmony
is
of this position
in
of
God, see
detached
22b below.^ note on No>o9, pp. 451 /., and comment on v. dew BrjXov, 11. OTL Se ev vofio) ovSeU hiKaiovrai irapa rw
"And
that no one
is
justified in
law before
God
is
evident."
Be introduces an additional argument for the position main^o/xft) is manifestly in the legalistic sense; on the tained in v.i''. ev^see on 2^^ irapa tw 6ea> is a most significant element force of the sentence. By it the apostle makes clear that as over
of
against the verdict of law set forth in the preceding sentence he is now speaking of the actual attitude of God. Cf. notes
on
v.^.
66
GALATIANS
clause preceding BrjXov
iart,
is
That the
sition
and the following clause the proof of it, rather than the reverse, which is grammatically possible, is proved by the fact that the following clause is a quotation from
O. T., and, therefore, valuable for proof of the apostle's assertion while not itself requiring to be proved. OTL " 'O SiKaLO^ iK TTLarecp^ ^tjaerai;' "because. The righteous
StjXov
man
shall live
BrjXou above.
ori^ see
2'
on otl
an affirmation
own
doctrine of justification
The
he intended them to convey to his readers is undoubtedly to be determined rather by Pauline usage in general, and by the part which the sentence plays in the apostle's argument, than
By
these considerations
Heb. had for the prophet. shown to be a forensic term, the man approved of God, rather
original
Blkuio^
is
its
usual active
"shall live,"
S^- " "
^^](TTai,
(cf.
Rom.
")
which
metonymy,
case, that
is
to justification
chiefly in
in
itself.
It
justification, in
by any
tion
from O. T.,
Rom.
i^^ lo^).
combine to express the idea of divine approval, and the sentence in effect means, " It is by faith that he who is approved of God is approved (and saved)." Cf. Rom. i^^ where the same passage is quoted and the context requires the same meaning. On the relation of this meaning to the original sense of Hab. 2\ see below.
For defence of the view that
^Tfjaexat
alvays
of
life,
to physical
life,
The Hebrew
SI
hi-Kciioq
of
Hab.
2*
The Lxx
read: 6
ex xcaT5([)? [xou
^ifjjsTat.
fastness," "integrity." The prophet confronted by the apparent triumph of the wicked Babylonian nation over Israel affirms his con-
167
viction
prosper.
that in the end righteous Israel will for her steadfastness The use of the passage with the active sense of iziaitq inits
this sense
might easily be conceived to be an ingredient or basis of faithfulness. Yet there is no definite evidence that Paul arrived at the active meaning by such an inferential process. It is, perhaps, quite as value of likely that he took the passage at what was for him the face
the
Lxx
translation.
12. 6 Be
of faith."
vofjLO';
ovk eariv
is,
i/c
iriaTeoi^,
"and
the law
is
not
That
mutually exclusive as bases of justification. It would have been formally more exact to have used o z/Jyuo? and r] iTlari^ or
e^ ep^Ciiv v6/jL0v
and
i/c
Trtb-reco?.
But with
essential clearness
the apostle employs in the predicate the prepositional phrase that was the w^atchword of the one doctrine, though for the
other he had used in the subject a nominative in preference By this to the grammatically harsh prepositional expression.
assertion the apostle excludes the thought of
compromise be-
one thing, legalism another, and as bases of justification they can not be combined. No doubt there wTre those who sought to combine them, admitting that justification was by faith, but claiming that obedience to
principles.
Faith
is
law was nevertheless requisite to salvation; as a modern Christian will affirm that religion is wholly a spiritual matter, yet
feel that
he
is
surer of salvation
if
a\X "'O
doeth them
7roLrjaa<;
avra
^rjo-erat ev aurot?."
He
that
shall live in
them."
The
between
this
statement of O. T. (Lev.
takes as a statement of the principle of legalism, and the possibility just denied that this principle and that of faith might
somehow be
"the law says." Thus to the principle of supply after legaUsm stated in its negative form in v." and set over against the quotation from Habakkuk with its affirmation of the prinadds an assertion of the principle of legalism in its positive form, also taken like that in v.^o from O. T. On the point of view from which the apostle thus quotes
ciple of faith, the apostle
aXX
68
GALATIANS
O. T. for both doctrines, see on vJ", and more fully in fine print
below.
13. Xpio-TO? rj^a?
e^rjyopacrev eK
tt}?
Kardpa^ rov
p6/jlov
"The
curse
law" here spoken of can consistently with the context be none other than that which is spoken of in v.^^, viz., the curse which the legalistic passages of O. T. pronounce on those who do not perfectly obey its statutes. As pointed out above on v.io, this is not the judgment of God. To miss this fact is
But if the curse is not an expression of God's attitude towards men, neither is the deliverit a judicial act in the sense of release from penalty, but a release from a false conception of God's attitude, viz., from the belief that God actually deals with men on a legalistic
ance from
basis. The work here ascribed to Christ is, therefore, of the same nature as that spoken of in Rom. f-^^-, and there said to be accomplished by Christ in his death, viz., a revelation of the
way
God, a demonstration
of
The verb
(Dan.
28
i^ayopi'C,bi,
is
Lxx
only) dowTi,
" to
buy up,"
and
(2)
or, figurative-
ly, " to
Diod.
" to redeem, to
deliver at cost of
in
some
in Col. in the
The middle
in
xbv y.aipov.
The
same sense
4^,
Dan.
2*.
The
b%h v6[jlou i^ayop&cs-Q. The meaning here is evidently the same as in 4', " to deliver, to secure release for one," probably with the implication conveyed in the etymological sense of the word (the simple verb iyopdCo means
" to buy,"
active
is
found
Yva xooq
and
it.
is
who
effects
unless
some kind (effort, suffering, or loss) to him The question to whom the price is paid is irrelevant, demanded by the context, intruding into later usage of the word
left
its earlier development. no argument to show that in the phrase ex zfic xazipaq Tou v6[xou the apostle has in mind some phase, aspect, or conception / -- of the law of God, not civil law or law in an inclusive sense of the
an idea
behind in
It requires
word.
It
legalisti-
cally understood,
falsely
from the curse which God is supposed to pronounce upon men on the basis of such a law.
to deliverance
and
Ill,
12, 13
169
In support of
this interpretation
spoken of
is
and against the view, that the law here of the word (see detached note on
is
NotJLoq, esp.
2a, b,
c,
the forgiveness of
piroughout
this passage
Paul
is
men
This
is
especially clear in
is,
vv.''''^^
(q.v.).
In
2",
the phrase
/.ardtpa TolT'vdtJLOu
v6[j,o<;
itself] there
indeed, no insuperable
(cf.
obstacle to taking
Rom.
and detached note on N6;jlo? V 2 b), and understanding by it the condemnation which God actually pronounces upon those who not simply
fall
down
who disobey
it (213).
xa-rdpot
Rom. i' 2*, to which it is practically equivalent. an abrupt change to law in another sense in itself impossible. It might easily occur if the change of sense were made evident, as it is in Rom. 3" and in various other passages, or if the argument were such and the two meanings so related that the logic of the passage would be but little affected, whether the meaning be retained or
expressed by 6?yt) in
Nor
is
changed, as in
tions
Rom.
exist.
2 12. ^i\^
But
do not
The
Indeed, there
no place
meaning the same as in the in the whole chapter for the word vb'^oq. Yet, it must
is
not legal-
ism in the abstract, but a concrete historical reality. It came four hundred and thirty years after Moses (v.i"); its fundamental principle
is
(v.i^).
s^-riyopaaev is itsfelf
ngjt
experience but as an epochal event. J^lBut thdre are other more decisive
considerations.
Thus
(i)
it is
its
primary
Jews;
for/
v6(xou in V. ",
t:he
of ii'^aq in v.
to xd eQvt] in v.
(iii)
^*,
These
g.,
facts
is
speaking not,
e.
of the for-
giveness of the individual, his release from the penalty of his sins, but
once for
all
It
is,
Rom.
3^^
rather
Pet.
!.
lyo
*
GALATIANS
[But the fact that the deliverance is an epochal event confirms our judgit is law in a legalistic sense that is here referred to. Confor
failure
ment that
ished
demnation
to
fulfil
i
is
not abol-
by the death
of Christ,
Rom.
2-i 8>-*.
Nor
can the reference be to the law "as a historic regime, the Mosaic system as such. /For though Rom. lo* might be interpreted as meaning that
Christ
is
the end of the law in this sense, and though the apostle un-
doubtedly held that those who believe in Christ are not under obligation to keep the statutes of the
Law
of
Moses
as such, yet
(i)
release
from obligation to obey statutes is not naturally spoken of as release from the curse of the law, and (ii) the idea of the abolition of statutes
is
term in
system.
Yet the
release
legalism in the sense that the divine government before Christ having
been on a legalistic basis is henceforth of a different character. Against any interpretation that makes the curse of the law a divine condemnation of men on grounds of legalism, in force from Moses to Christ, it is a decisive objection that the apostle both elsewhere and in this very chapter insists that God had never so dealt with men, but that the principle of faith established before law was not set aside by it
(see esp. v.^')-
had
and concrete expression in if, e. g., it were a work of the devil. For he elsewhere declares that the law is holy and righteous and good (Rom. T^") and in this chap, (w.^'f) implies that it had its
historic existence in the O. T. period
it all
O. T., denied to
above the
and legitimacy
that in the his-
is
and will, one which when taken by itself and assumed to be complete gave a false notion of God's attitude towards men. The curse of the law is the verdict of a reality, of the law isolated from the rest of the O. T. revelation. But so isolated it expressed,
of the divine thought
it;
he held,
full
possession of the
field,
Its function
The
it
whom
was
ac-
Ill,
13
171
was a disclosure of the status of a man on a basis by actual achievement, not of God's attitude towards him. The latter, Paul maintained, was determined by other than legalistic considerations, by his faith (v.), by his aspiration, his strivirig, the fundamental character of his life and conduct (Rom. 2^"^^). JBut if this is the meaning of the phrase, "the curse of the law," and if deliverance from it was an epochal event accomplished by the death of Christ on the cross, it must have been achieved through the revelatory value of the event, by that which God through that event revealed; and this either in the sense that God thereby announced the end of that system of legalism which in the time of Moses came in to
cursed of God.
It
of merit estimated
own
and so g^ve evidence that legalism never was the basis of his judgment of men.i It is the first of these thoughts that Paul has apparently expressed m Rom. lo^ and it is not impossible Yet it is more consonant both with the fact that Paul speaks here. of deliverance from the curse of the law rather than from the law, and xaxdipa, etc.) to supwith what follows (see below on fB\6'^zwq
. .
.
pose that, as in
Rom.
3".
26 58,
he
is
changed and unchangeable attitude of God. If, indeed, and in so far as the law is thought of as brought to an end, it is probably in the sense that this results from the revelation of God's character rather than by anything like a decree in terms abolishing
it.
This
is
also not
lo*.
<yi'6iJLvo<;
virep
7]fjia)v
Kardpa,
"an
execration,"
"an expression
or
v.^),
by metonymy,
become a curse
in
in a literal sense.
Paul.
Cf.
to
and and Rom. 3^. Cf. also i Cor. i^", us from God, and righteousness and
:
and redemption"; but esp. 2 Cor. 5^1 "Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf {virep y/i(bv), that we might become righteousness of God in him." As there afiaprta stands in a sense for ayidpTOiXo'; and BiKacoavvi] for ^t/cato9, so doubtless here Kardpa stands for [eVt]/caTa/3aT09
as the iTTiKardparo^ in the following quotation also suggests.
More important
phrase
i/c
is
r?)?
Kardpa^ rod
172
refers to
GALATIANS
a curse oj the law, which, as
we have
seen above,
is
not
jevofiepo'^ is
probably a
whole phrase expressing the method by which Christ redeemed us from the curse, virep r]ix(av means "on our behalf." It can not be pressed to mean "in our place" (avrC). See further on i^, vTrep tmv dfiaprLcov r/fxcov. Precisely in what sense and how Christ came under the curse of the law, and how this availed to deliver us from that curse, must appear from a consideration of the quotation by which
Paul supports
The
.
.
.
his affirmation.
Yev6[xevo<;
/.axipa,
taken by
itself:
(i)
Christ
became a curse
in that
he was
He became
He
experienced
God's wrath against sinners, not as himself the object of divine wrath, but vicariously and by reason of his relation to men.
(4)
He was
the object of
human
execration
of
cursed by men.
In this
case
Yv6iJLevoc;
ing circumstance, the phrase suggesting the cost at which Jesus re-
He
fell
How he did so would be left under the curse of the law, not of God or
is
men.
The
first
easily excluded
by
its
of his judgments.
The
The
third
is
in 2 Cor.
52^
probably quite consistent with the apostle's thought. As he says that "him who knew no sin he made to be sin
we might become righteousness of God in him," not meanbecame sinful, but that by reason of his relation to men he experienced in himself the consequences of sin. so by this language he might mean that Jesus by reason of his sympathetic relation with men experienced in himself the curse of God upon men for their sin. But there is no expression of this thought in the context,
for us, that
and
it is,
of the
word
does
y.<xz&p(x
The
is
fourth
is
equally possible in
it
itself,
but, like
the preceding,
open
make
in
The
of the apostle's
writings,
by
it.
Ill,
13
Kp6/JidfjLP0<; eirX
173
^vXov,"
"because
tree."
it is
written, Cursed
is
The
introduced to sup-
port the statement that Christ became a curse, not that he thereby "deUvered us from the curse of the law," or that it
The
body
of a
to death,
was
hanged upon a tree. In such a case it is said, "Thou shalt surely bury him the same day; for he that is hanged is the curse of God, that thou defile not thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." Between this passage and the fact of which the apostle is speaking there seems to be only a superficial connection. On the question whether the
apostle found a
Deut.
2i25,
more
which in the
Lxx
reads oti
xsy.aTT]?a;xevo<;
inrb
GeoO ira?
v.pe\iik[).e\>oq
be supposed to furnish support to Paul's previous statement that Christ became a curse for us in several ways: (i) '^syo[iewq /.axapa being understood to have any of the first three meanings suggested above, the 0. T. passage may be quoted purely
1x1 ^jXou,
may
there
is
manifestly nothing in
resemblance to the assertion which the apostle has made; its real meaning to support the assertion
that Christ,
who died not for his own sins but as an innocent man, any sense under the curse of God. Its use for this purpose would be verbalism pure and simple. (2) If Yev6;j,evo<; /.axapa be supposed to refer to the reprobation of men, the passage may be used to explain that reprobation, men naturally looking upon one who died the death of a criminal as actually such and under the curse of God.
came
in
(3) If
xarapa refers to the curse of the law, then the quotation may be how and in what sense he became a
Inasmuch as the law affirms that whoever is hanged curse of the law. on a tree is accursed, and Jesus died on the cross, he falls under this But inasmuch as this verdict is verdict and the curse of the law. manifestly false and monstrous, in it the law does not so much condemn Christ as itself, and thereby, since false in one it may be so in
less of literalism
emancipates us from the fear of its curse. Or, (4) with somewhat xaxdpa may be supposed to refer to the curse of the law, the O. T. quotation, however, being cited not solely with reference to the fact of hanging on the tree, but to all that the crucifixion Law and he who takes his stand on law, must say that represents.
all, it
,
Christ, having died on the cross, is a sinner i. e., that under law no one could come to such a death who was not himself guilty of sin as
174
of legalism
GALATIANS
But
in that verdict
it
condemns
itself,
and
it is
God
is
not one of legalism, but of love and of vicarious suffering, the righteous for the wicked.
Of these various interpretations the last two alone comport with the it is the curse of the law of which Paul is speaking throughout the passage, and the last is preferable because more consonant with the fact that for Paul generally the cross signifies not the outward fact
fact that
by
>8-
crucifixion or
on a
tree,
but
all
for as a revelation of
God and
See
Cor.
ii^-
^s.
which the
in
is
of uxb 6eou probably due, as Ltft. suggests, to a shrinking of the apostle from the suggestion that Christ was the object of God's reprobation.
is
The omission
If
sible that
both the latter interpretations be rejected because it seems imposunder these words there lies so much thought not directly
among
(i)
The
may
be
supposed to be a
it,
The
is
serious
related
which
it
is
and
4^*
that Paul was incapable of such a use of scripture, but that in making
the curse of the law a real curse (of God) this interpretation makes the
apostle directly contradict the very proposition which he
is
maintainbasis of
men
by God on a
Or
(2)
we may suppose
law" bears the meaning required by the context, but that after the first clause of v." the apostle abandons thought for words, and seeks to substantiate his assertion that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by affirming that Christ took upon him the curse of our sin, and that he sustains this statement by an O. T. passage which supports it in sound but not in sense. As in the preceding case, the real difficulty of the interpretation lies in the method of reasoning which it imputes to Paul. Having in XptaT6<; v6[jlou affirmed
. . .
ni, 13-14
175
our release from the curse of the law, according to this interpretation
he substantiates
this
and one really remote from the context. That the scripture that he quotes supports this statement only in appearance is a secondary matter. It remains to consider as a final possibility (3) the view that the apostle follows
curse in a quite different sense of the words,
up
of the law,
not with proof or explanation, but with a statement intended to suggest the cost at which he achieved the deliverance of
men from
the
Y-a-z&pcx,
Christ
by men.
Cf.
Heb.
why
is
12'; see (4) on p. 172. The 0. T. the death on the cross led men to look on
as one accursed.
To
by
it
men"
is
after
Lxx
In order of probability
preceding
list.
in the
The
that one does and the other does not supply unexpressed elements of
thought, or that one does and the other does not take O. T. scripture
in
its
historic sense,
but on the answer to the question whether it is more methods of thinking to argue illogi-
14. iva
et?
ra
eOvij
rj
upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Jesus Christ." In this clause and the following one the apostle states the purpose not of any of the subthat
v,^^,
ordinate elements of
rod
vo/iov.
By
^7 ^,
evXojLa
the bless-
by
faith,
{cf.
28^), was promised beforehand and which they shared with him. This blessing came to the Gentiles in Jesus Christ in that it was through him that the purpose of God to accept men by faith was revealed, and that through faith in him they enter into actual participa-
Gen.
176
elq is
GALATIANS
probably to be taken as marking
Cf.
i
its
of a
is
movement.
'iTjaoCi
Thes. i^
basal sense;
In
cf.
doubtless used in
'Ev
its
on
2'^
Xptjxw
is
the reading of
'I.
SB
authorities reading ev X.
2i
The
most on
a
with reference to the tendency of the mss., together with the high
authority of
for
doubt that
ev
Xptaxw
'iTjaoO is
Cf. the
5^1 61.
"that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through rrjv iirayyeXLav tov Trvev/jcaro'^ is a metonymic phrase faith."
meaning the promised Spirit. Cf. Lk. 24^^ Acts i'' 26^ Heb. 9^^ and especially Acts 2^^. See also the similar cases of e\7ri? meaning "that which is hoped for," chap. 5^ Col. i^ This second tVa-clause is probably to be taken, not as dependent on the first, but as co-ordinate with it, and the implied subject
?7/xet?
lieving Jews, as
v.^^;
for it is difficult
to see
how
and
if
ham
by an expressed ^M^t?
latter
in the
Obviously the
Christ's redemption
of us
of the
faith.
The adapta-
tion of
means
lie
to
end as respects
viously to
redemption of
men from
the
by
their enlightenment as to
titude to them carries with it the revelation of faith as the means by which men become acceptable to God, and that
Spirit.
and 4^. These final clauses, therefore, with their double statement of the purpose of Christ's redemptive work, confirm the
Ill,
14-15
177
its
it
significance
and
its
redemptive power
attitude of
which
Whether in speaking of the promise of the Spirit the apostle has in mind the prophecy of Joel. 2^8 Ezek. 36", or, being acquainted with
the tradition underlying Acts be stated with certainty. It
is
i^,
refers to a
is
Holy Abraham. In that case the Abraham and has learned to interpret
in a
having reference to the gift of the Spirit. This possibility is measure favoured by the use of exaYyeXta in vv. ! i' of the promise
to
Abraham.
4.
Argument from
the irrevocaUeness of
Drawing
his
of
men
mutual consent), the apostle applies this thought to the covenant with Abraham, contending that the law coming centuries afterwards
it.
^^Brethren, I speak
from
men.
Though
it
{^^Now
to
Abraham were
not,
"and
to his
seed.^'
one,
"And
as of
seed,''
which
is Christ.)
hundred and
make
it is
no longer of promise; but to Abraham God granted it by promise. 15. 'ASe\(f)OL, Kara avOpwirov \eyoj. "Brethren, I speak from
the point of view of men."
Its use here is
On the use of aSeXcj^oi, see on i^. probably due to the apostle's feeling that he is
was
really speaking to the judaisers
now
178
whose argument he was
their friendly attention.
GALATIANS
refuting,
and
On Kara
The
"as
men
do," the
resemblance being indicated in the context. Here this general meaning naturally becomes, "I speak as men
do about their affairs" {cf. i Cor. 9^), i. tion from common human practice."
authority such as
is
e.,
"1 draw an
reference to
is
illustra-
A
it
human
and
suggested in
is
Cor. 9^
of
improbable here,
no suggestion
is
in the context
uncalled for
o/^w?
avdpcoTTOv
Kefcvpw/JLevrjv
it
BcaO^KrjV
iTriSiarda-aeraL.
"Though
Of the force
antithesis
of o/xco?
may mark an
follows.
between
Xeyo),
dvOpcoTTov, etc.,
is
the second
member
must be supposed
to be
in,
The most probably by the whole argument of vv. ^^^' ". thought will then be, "Though I speak from the point of view
of
men's
affairs,
yet what
may
be so said
etc.
is
man's
ratified
covenant,"
(So
substantially
Olsh., cited
dvdpcoTTov
by Wies.) (2) The antithesis may be between and what follows. This involves a trajection by
stands not in
its
which
oyLcco?
o/Ltco?
member
(l)66'yyoL<i
of the antithesis,
d\pv')(^a
fiT]
rd
(fxjjvrjv
.
idi'
hiaarokr^v
rob;
So)
where
tween
(j)(j)V7]v
dxj/vxci'
and
(jiccvrju
BiBovTa, or
. .
sage have been compared also Plat. V 4^^V o/jUjo^ koX OeLorepov koI koWlov ov tov
more probably between With this pasfJirj Bo). Pliaed. 91C {(jiO^elraL fir]
.
crco/jLaro^; trpo-
airoWvTjTaL
Cyr.
5.
ev
(^'i^f^
i-^
avv
fxev
Oappovfxev).
Ill,
15
Is
179
between the
SiaOrjKrj
IT
as
2,
p. 85.
man-made and
The
But
first
instance of
it is
probably to be preferred.
KeKvpw^ievqv,
which
is
im-
ovheh aOerel.
the apostle's
The validation of the covenant is evidently in mind not, like avOpcoiroVj a fact in spite of which
it
no one annuls
bility,
or adds to
it,
as
is
7rpoKKvpo^lieV7]P in v.^^
By
Siadrj/CT]
Sief.
R.am. Zahn,
Lohmeyer, et al.) nor "stipulation," "arrangement," in a sense broad enough to cover both will and covenant (Hauck in Th. St. u. Kr., 1862, pp. 514^., Segond, and Bous.), but as the usage of N. T. in general and of Paul in particular and the context here require, "covenant" in the sense of the O. T. H^'IB (soMey.
Alf.
Ell.
fuller
Ltft. ERV.text, ARV. Beet). Cf. on v.^^, and for statement of the evidence, see detached note on AtaOi]Kr]^
pp. 496 /.
'AvGpwxou.
The
singular
number of
this
a relation between two persons often proceeds from one, and (b) because the noun is here most naturally understood as qualitative as in
the phrase xaTa d'v0po)xov.
Cf. i^
Bt'
dv6p(I)xou
given there.
Ke/,upa)[xsvT)v
(cf.
in I
Mac.
8' in
infrequent; see
^sch.
prefix-
and 4 Mac. 7'; Plut. Oral. vit. that without which it would not be
Bca6-^/,T3v,
The
what
is
l8o
implied in the word
BtaOiQ/,T3
GALATIANS
itself,
is
referred to
is
subject to modification.
StsXuOTf).
YvwfjLTfjv
C/.
ii':
Thuc.
x(x\
8.
6':
i]
ixyCk-qcia
xupcoaaja laurx
Polyb.
. .
.
i.
zh
[xlv
ffuv^Bpiov o05'
a. 45.
e?<;
x^Xoq sxupwcs
ih xupwG^v.
t-J)v
Boeckh,
C. I. G. 1570
.
xb
t])-q(f)ia[ia
Gen.
uldiv
T(p 'A^paaiJL
xapa twv
ouv
word
in v.i')-
Dan.
6'
Ixupwasv.
xOpcoTo.
Plut. Alcib.
^2t^:
(}jT)(pc(T[JLa TTi(;
ouSel?
a$Tel
errthiaTciaaeTaL
is
to
be taken without
"except the
contractor"
(so
cf.
Zahn, Bous.
ad loc).
assume that either party alone is For evidence that this assertion itself shows that the BluO^kt] avOpcdTTOV, which Paul uses, Kara av6po:)7rov, to prove the unto
to deprive the statement of all meaning.
But
God
is
a covenant, not a
detached note on
"to render
^laOrjicri, pp.
(
496 f.
'AOexlto,
(26stoc;"
occurs from
Lxx and
Mk.
7'
Heb. 10"),
"to
i).
Mac. 11"
Mac. 13");
clearly the
of persons
211* Isa.
Cf. also
M. and M.
Voc.
s. v.
"To annul"
is
meaning
here.
'EictSiaTdaffeTat
furnishes
but
Siaxiacjo) is
"to arrange," "to prescribe"; the middle occurring in Plut. in the sense " to make a will," " to order by will." The compound ETriBiaTiaad)
evidently signifies "to
make
additional prescriptions"
{cf. eTci5caT(9TQ;xt,
Dio Cass. 6215 and extStaOi^xT], "codicil," Jos. Ant. 17. 226 (9*) and examples cited by Norton, A Lexicographical and Historical Study of
AtaO-^xTQ
.
to the original
added)
is
Whether such prescriptions are contrary compact (they of course modify it or they would not be beside the mark; a compact once executed can not be changed.
. .
Chicago, 1908).
16.
Tft)
tm
airep-
"Now
to
Abraham were
seed.' "
and
Ill,
I5-K
181
the next (v.") are parenthetical, see on rovro Be Xeyo), v.". of are those which accompanied the
covenant and which constituted it on the side of divine grace. On the relation of promise and covenant, see detached note 17^-8. on ALadriKr], p. 497, and cf. Gen. g^^^-; but esp. Gen.
See also Cremer^o, p^ 1062. The apostle more ! '' '' Rom. the singular iirayyeXia (see w.^^-
commonly
4^''
'' ''
uses
^'),
but
plural also without marked difference of thought employs the the basis for which is in the repeated (see v.21 and Rom. 9^),
occasions on which the promise was made to Abraham, and the See Gen. i2 2ff- 1314-17 various forms in which it was expressed.
Paul's definition of the content of the promevents, see on ise as interpreted in the light of subsequent strictly grammatical point of view From a KXrjpovofxia, v.^^.
j^i,
5,
18
jy2-8^
On
TO)
But
eppedTjaav. is a dative of indirect object after only by a rhetorical figure that the promises are said In the original passage, Gen. 13^^ to be uttered to the seed. 177. 8, and in this sentence by intent the seed are included with Abraham in those to whom the promises are to be ful-
airepixan
it is
filled.
ov Xeyec
evo^
not.
seed,
Kal rol^i crTrep^aaLV,^^ cb? eVl ttoWwv, a\X w? icj) "Kal Tw airepfJLaTi aov,'' 0? iaTcv XpLaro^. "He saith And to the seeds, as of many, but as of one. And to thy
''
The subject of Xeyei to be supplied in is Christ." ^? doubtless o deo^ as implied in virb tov Oeov (v.^Othought is indicates that the following expressions refer to the point of
which
view of the speaker, this." CJ. Th. s. V.
^eo?, so that
3.
e-TTt
it is
equivalent to "meaning
with the genitive in the sense "in respect to," apparently occurs here only in N. T., but is found in If these words are from classical writers. CJ. Th. s.v.hl.i. e. the apostle it must be supposed that fcr the purpose of heightening the impression of the dignity and inviolabihty of the covenant and suggesting the impossibility of its having already
received
fulfilment before the law came in, he avails himunusual use of airepiia in the singular as meaning, or self of an applied to, an individual descendant, and founds on this fact an argument for referring the 0. T. passage to Christ; yet
its
152
GALATIANS
Rom.
(Gen.
96'
31,
but especially
and
Cor.
1212.
This
is,
of
meaning
or
^).
of
or
if
But
there
any other
inter-
pretation which will satisfy the requirements both of the Gen. passages and of the context here. The latter must, therefore,
decide the apostle's meaning; cf. on v.". It is not probable, indeed, that the apostle derived the meaning of the promise
He
is
well aware of
word
and Rom. 4^3-18) jjg doubtless arrived at his thought, not by exegesis of scripture, but from an interpretation of history, and then availed himself of the singular noun to express his
thought
is
briefly.
XpLaro^
in
any case an
no evidence in O. T. beyond the fact that the promise refers to one person. On the possibility that the words ov \eyet Xpi,(TT6<; are the work of an early editor of the epistles of Paul, see end of detached note on ^ireptxaTi and ^Trepfiaaip^ p. 509.
. . .
''Now this I mean." The function of up for further argument or explanation a thought already expressed. Cf. i Cor. 1^2 and similar phrases
this
phrase
is
to take
in
Cor.
729
io29
16^.
The
following
phrase,
SiaOrjKrjv
of
7rpoKe/cvpo)fivr]p
V.i^
therefore, parenthetical.
Koi
rpiciKOVTa
ttjv
ery
yeyopcbs
vono^ ovk
anvpol^
el?
to
Ka-
rapyr^aai
lished
eirayyeXiav.
"A
covenant previously
estabthirty
make
(b)
inoperative the
promise."
either
(a)
The word
But the
hiaOrjtcrj
is
itself
ambiguous, meaning
"will," "testa-
"covenant," "agreement," or
ment."
and
thought of the
Lxx
translators,
and
of
Ill,
16-17
183
a covenant.
took the
In
it
God
was primarily an expression of his grace and authority, not a bargain between equals. Yet none and
it
while of these things contravene the character of a covenant, irrevocability (see v.^^), and the practical exmutuality, its
its
mark
it
as
v.^^
will.
.
See on BiaOrjKT] in
The emphatic elements and detached note on Aiadi^KT], p. 502 argument turns are the Trpo- in of the sentence on which the The 7rpofceKVpoJiJiV7]v, the phrase viro rod Oeov, and fJ^erd.
major premise of the argument is in KCKvpcc^evrjp SiaOrjKTjv eirihaTacTaeTaL of v.^^; the minor premise is in ovSeh
.
.
the
ixera
...
it
ment, giving
an a minori ad majus effect. If a covenant once in force can not be modified or annulled by any subsequent action, the covenant with Abraham can not be set aside by the subsequent law. If this is true of a man's covenant, much more is it true of a covenant made by God with Abraham, since God must be more certainly true to his promises than man. ments
chap.
Cf.
Rom.
this
3^^.
The
apostle
is
of
5.
type.
The words dq Xptcxov after Oeoj, found in the leading Western mss., and adopted by most Syrian authorities, are an interpretative addition, akin to and doubtless derived from v.i".
The verb
xpoxupoo) occurs elsewhere only in
much
Proep. Evang.
4, etc.).
The
xpo-
is
On
in history," see
Mk.
the use of jivo[iai in the sense " to come," The perfect i^ Jn. i<>- " i Jn. 2^K
tense marks the coming of the law as something of which an existing BAIT 154. This result remains, in this case evidently the law itself.
82. phase of the meaning can not well be expressed in English. Cf. The number four hundred and thirty is evidently derived by the
BMT
Hebrew
text,
"the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years," the Vatican ms. of the Lxx, with which agrees,
also
the
Samaritan
Pentateuch, reads:
?)
Be
y.aToi/.TQat?
twv
ylwv
184
'lapaiik
y]v
GALATIANS
xarwxiQjav ev
xivTE,
^f,
AlyuxTtp xal
Iv
ytJ
Xavciav
I'ty)
Terpaxocrfa
but AF, perhaps also the second hand of B, omit xivTs (so Tdf.), and A adds auxol xaX ol Tzoc-cipei aiixdiv. The expresTptdixov-ca
is
no equivalent
in
Hebrew,
Canaan previous
to that in Egypt,
is,
On
quoted
tle's
on Gal. cd
save that the longer the covenant had been in force, the more impressive is his statement.
That
6 vofAoq is
by Moses, the
participial phrase
is still
it,
presumption
is
thinking
as in 313
same
light, or of
is the less reason to depart from that presumpthe supreme place which Paul's opponents had given, in their doctrine of the basis of acceptance with God, to the legalistic
v.);
and there
it is
tion because
make
The
legalistic aspect
".
13^
is,
therefore,
in vv.i"'
still
present.
though
less in the
'Axupoto, a late
Mt.^i5
Mk.
71' 4.
Greek word (i Esd. 6"; Dion. Hal. Antiq. 2. 72"; Mac. 2^ s's 7M 172. pjut. Dio, 48^; Apoph. lacon. 3)'
signifying "to make invalid," whether by rescinding or by overriding, or otherwise (in Plut. Cic. 49', apparently in a more material sense, "to destroy"), is here used in the first sense. Cf. dGexet, v.'*; M. and M.
p. 228, quoting from papyri Paul would not have denied that in the thought and practice of men law had displaced the covenant, but that law legitimately did so (as a new law may specificdtOexTfj-tq;
Voc.
on ixupoo and
zlq
and Dt.BS.
the phrase
dGexTjaiv
xal dxupwatv.
e(q to
measure
(of rare
(Bif r 411).
xaxapyeto
occurrence in Greek authors, in Lxx only 2 Esd. 421. 23 55 6; in N. T. frequent in Paul elsewhere only in Lk. 13' Heb. 2^*) means "to
make
same
tial
ineffective, inoperative"
as a\ exayyeXtat in
v.i,
(a-epyov). t^v exayysXfav signifies the the singular here reflecting the substan-
made on
and utterances.
18.
el
if
yap
i/c
vofxov
rj
"For As in
the inheritance
is
of law,
it is
no longer of promise."
compromise
of
and
Ill,
17-18
185
no account," for if the law affects the promise at all, it annuls it. The previous reference It can not be added to it; it destroys it.
to the haOriKri
vofJLLa
it
clear that
rj
KXrjpo-
note
the
refers
to
the possession
cf.
Rom.
4^3,
m)^
his seed.
Ps. Sol.
72 92
143^ oTi
rj
ixpi<^
KoX
77
easily
who through
^^
faith
become acceptable
Eph.
God
is
(see
Acts
5^ Col. 32^), of
new
life (v.^)
Eph.
i^^- ^^ 4^''),
and
so the fulfilment
Such a
here.
Cf.
Rom.
4^*
of
v.^''
of his
But for the purposes as a promise of the Spirit. argument at this point, the content of the KXrjpovofiia is not emphasised. It was whatever the covenant promised to Abraham and to his seed. His opponents would concede that
this
Abraham
was a
spiritual,
KXr}pow[i.i(x
{%kf}poq,
"a
share,"
ve[X6),
Isocrates,
by
In the papyri
it is
heirs, or of that
BGU.
I 19, II 3,
which one receives by inheritance: Pap. Amh. II 72' ; 350 *' 5; Pap. Teht. II 3195' ", etfreq. It occurs very
in the great majority of cases as the translation of
^^^iX-
often in the
Lxx,
Canaan
,
Chr.
i6i"i8;
cf.
Gen.
)
;
17''
where,
n^nst
and the
Lxx
19);
4''
xaxdaxstrtq
or to the share
(Josh. chap.
God<Deut.
Sometimes
it
1 86
received
GALATIANS
by
by one at death, (Num. 27^'" ^6^-*' ). ever, does it refer to property transmitted by will; but see xXir)povo[jita in the Lxx has the same range of meaning. See
is left
'.
i5>2 17".
refer strictly
property received
12' Lk.
or
75
transmitted
it
Mk.
20" Acts
Heb. ii*
55
Col. 3^*
Heb.
g'^
i^
it is
men
are
to receive
from God.
in this sense of
"promised possession"
there anything in the
that
it
is
Sca9Tjx.ifj
Nor
is
StxGtjxT].
voixou
on v.^O, but are by these phrases presented not individually as the law and the promise, but qualitatively as law and promise. The legalistic aspect of the law is a shade more in thought here than in v. l^
ex.
s. V.
and ex
v6[xou is substantially
ouxItc (Gal.
an example
of this usage
such, but suggests how the logical use The conditional clause, as in chap. 2", what the apostle in fact regards as a
Rom. 7"- 20 ii by Grimm, is probably not might grow out of the temporal).
sets forth as
BUT
243.
iirayyeXia^ Kexap^o-Tac 6
it
6e6<^.
"but
to
by promise."
The implied
Ke'^^dpiaTai
object
empha-
in force, thus
argument of vv.^-^-^^ The statement as a whole constitutes the minor premise of which the preceding sentence is the major premise. If the inheritance is by law, it is not
by promise; but
law.
XaptXotJ^ai is
it
is
by promise;
therefore
it
is
not by
used from
Homer down
(a)
"to do
(to another),
ciously";
Rom,
8'^ etc.
m, 18-19
5.
187
preceding argument
(3^^"^^).
Answer
leaves the
and repeated insistence on the inferiority of law to the promise, and its inability to justify, naturally raises the question, weighty for one who was not prepared to deny to the law all divine authority. What, then, is the law This Paul answers by ascribing to it the function of for? producing transgressions, denying to it power to give life, and making it simply temporary and preparatory to the gospel.
apostle's strong
The
^^What then
transgressions
to
is the significance
it
of the law ?
For
was added,
still
to
whom
the
promise
in force
was made, being enacted through hand of a mediator. ^^But the mediis one.
God
contrary to
promises of God?
By
no means.
life,
For
if there
had been
up
all
the
to
who
believe.
v6}xo^',
19. Ti ovv 6
"What
then
is
law?"
v6iio<;
A
is,
in vv.i^-18,
which seemed
of course, the
v.".
to leave the
see
on
v.^^
and on
There is no perfectly decisive consideration to enable us to choose between the translations "why is" and "what is," "what signifies."
Paul frequently uses
etc.),
-zl
ouv.
while
31.
3
elsewhere signifies
41
1% etc.),
be
See
il
Cor.
2>^:
-zi
HauXoq; Jn.
is
6':
Tauxa II
ejTtv;
but
cf.
"Why
is
the
law?"
is
"What
signifies
text shows,
in
in the apostle's
how is it with the law?" and this, as the conany case the most prominent element of the thought mind, ouv connects this question with what precedes,
the law,
1 88
GALATIANS
x^P^^ TrpooeTedr), "For the sake of the was added." TrpoaereO'q marks the law as supplementary, and hence subordinate to the covenant. The
T(ov irapa/Sdaecov
it
transgressions
statement
is
vv.^^^-,
a
It
it,
no way modifying
provisions.
In
17^^,
itself %/otj^
may be
tmv
or causal as in Lk.
Jn.
3^^;
Clem.
(cited
Hom.
by
11^^:
irapairrooixdroiv x^P^^ V
^^jJ-'^p^cL
eirerac
Ell.
and
Ltft).
For, since
is
it is
may be sin, there is no transgression {irapd^aai^^ see Rom. 4^^ 51^), his choice of the word TrapajSaaeoi)]^ here must be taken to indicate that he is speaking not of that which is antecedent but of that which is
that where there
The phrase
%a/3tJ',
is
is,
therefore,
by
and
is
that
it
nat-
Nor can
it
edge of"
^ajOti/"),
(c/.
Sief.
um
verstanden zu
eVtYz^cocreco?
tmv irapa^daeoiv
but only the discovery in the expression rcov irapa^dFor the he probably conceived of
sin
as brought
into
transgression, see
Rom.
320 415
513. 14. 20
y7-i2^
The
will
restrictive,
is,
''the transgressions
which
thereby be produced."
Ill,
IQ
189
ap^pt"?
av e\6r) to
rb aireptxa
v.^*^^,
(TTrepixa
come
to
whom
the promise
still
in force
made."
is,
was same
sense as in
viz., Christ, if
from Paul
{cf.
p. 182);
otherwise as in
v.29,
those
who
are Christ's.
its
iirruyeXraL, per-
existing result,
marks
in force.
The whole
clause, %/3t?,
validity,(
through the period of the law and afterwards, the law on the
other hand as temporary, added to the permanent covenant
for a period
hmited in both
directions.
That the
implied in
relation of
men
to
God was
it
from what
But
principle of faith
was
w.^^-'^,
2^,
and
of
Hab.
Both (Sc'xptq av and a^pt ou are current forms in the first century (M. and M. Voc. s. v.), but Paul elsewhere reads (i'xpt[<;] ou (Rom. II" I Cor. ii^^ 15"). In Rom. 11" and i Cor. 15" mss. vary between 5xpt and axpt<; before ou and in i Cor. 11 - 15" a considerable group add av after ou, yet none apparently read d'xptq av. It is improbable, therefore, that this reading is the work of the scribes.
ou.
Siarayeh
St'
ayyeXoJv iv
%et/3l
jieaiTov
"being enacted
%et/3t
The mediator
is
is
self-evidently
Sief.
probably, as
22 1.
suggests, intended
see
Exod.
he^twv
1 18
iic
avTov ayyeXoL
sages cited
is to
ixer
avTov.
i^s;
Test.
XII
Heb.
p. 27.
Acts f^'
by DSb.Gwt.
The
by God.
19^
On
haxikaaii),
GALATIANS
with reference to the enactment of a law,
276; Plato, Legg.
XI
931 E.
The
participle
is
by
T.poaeziQri
(BMT
139/.).
Job 9":
ecBs ^v b [leak-qq
xal eXIyxt^'''
touc;
^^a^
dt^-oo-reptov.
e^ouXexo
TOiJTOv
Yap
[xeaiTTjv
Cremcr,
v.,
and Riggen-
"Der Begriff der AtaOifjxTQ im Hebraerbrief," in Theologischc Shuiien Th. Zahn dargehracht, p. 307, interpret the word in this passage and in Jos. Ant. 4. 133 (6') see below as meaning "surety," "guarantor." But while this meaning would give reasonable sense to the pabsages,
bach,
.
there
is
therefore,
nothing in the context to require it, and these passages can not, be regarded as vouchers for it. Philo De Somn. I 142 (22);
ii<
sumpt. Mos.
Oebs xpb
v.ct'za^o'k'qq
7.da\io\i
slvai jxs
loc.
zfiq,
hiocQ-qy.r}q
auxou
[xeatxT^v.
et
See
{cf. 3>2):
itaqnc excogitavit
invenit
me, qui ah initio orhis tcrrarum pmparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamentt
illius; Test.
XII
Jos.
Pat.
Dan.
4.
on Jub. I");
IxeakiQv
Ant
wv uxtaxvouvTO.
6, ^j-satTYj? Osou xa> dcvOpcixou {cf. Charles 133 (6^, xauxa Se d^xvuvTsq eXeyov xal Oebv ^w^. 16. 24 (2^). Pap. Gd. Caw'O, p. 30: edcv aoc
is
S6^
f)[xelv
[xeaefxTfjv f);xelv
refers to
two
ak-Qq
was to be
arbiter).
Plut.
De
Tbv
txeat'xTjv
dvotxd^ouatv.
See other
In N. T., besides
122^ i
which
it Is
gestion of
Tim. 2^, in all though in Heb. 8 there is also a sugMoses as the mediator of the old covenant, meaning the law.
a
title of Jesus,
20. o Be
iJ.eaiTrj<;
eh
earlv.
is
"But
the mediator
is
God
is
one."
This
a part of
the argument in depreciation of the law as compared with the covenant of promise, reiterating in part what has already been
said in v.^^. The first clause is a general statement deduced from the very definition of a mediator. From the duality of the persons between whom the mediator acts and the fact that God is but one person, the inference intended to be drawn is that
in-
directly
assumed
law
is
be in mind.
To
unconditional, or a referis
to go
beyond the
Ill,
19-20
19
determinative,
i.
si-zakr^ci
is
in
this
clause generic,
is
lit.,
"The
not
[a
mediator]
ator
is
to
To make it refer directly and exclusively to a specific medimake the whole sentence simply assertion, lacking even the
It
make
mediator of v.i^
if
v.i'
But
this
is
This generic statement of v.": 6 Be \kB<zlxr\q hhq oux suxtv, is intended To introduce to be applied to Moses, the mediator, referred to in v.".
the conception of some other mediator, as,
et al.),
e. g.,
is
must be taken
no other interpretation
h Be eeb<; elq eaxfv.
4.
is
dq
in the clause
The
oiix is
not a plu-
through a mediator, but a duality of parties: in other words, h [xsaiTrji; whom the mediator acts
must
consist
must be two
is
between
whom
between.
However
upon
tive of a group,
made
God
is
one,
Moses
as mediator
berichtiglen Text,
tiLea{TTf3i;
for
may
two
and usage show, as the middleman between each of one person or of more, as
minor premise to
The unexpressed
192
GALATIANS
alone, without a mediator,
is
and superior
to it.*
So
in the
cil.
The
more
quite possibly
is.
that Paul himself could not have added such a rabbinic re- enforcement
own argument.
which while supplying "in the promise" makes the Ictc'v, thus supplemented, a minor premise, the
EU.'s view,
mediator
is
God
is
one;
no mediator,
it
started.
is
not of
many (= the law was not like the promise for a single chosen family, but to many families of Abraham's children after the flesh), but God is nevertheless one ( = the God of Sinai is one with
one seed, but
the
God
of promise),
is
and
21. o ovv
vofJLO^;
Kara
fJir)
yevoLTO.
God?
By no
means."
The question
is
on, w^hich obviously suggests an affirmative That Paul returns a negative answer signifies, however, not that he has forgotten and is now denying what he has up to this time affirmed, nor probably that he is using the word "law" in a different sense. It would, indeed, resolve the seeming contradiction and take the words in a sense not improbable in itself to suppose that he here means the law simply
v.^o, esp. v.^^
from
answer.
It
result to take
is one, acted without a mediator "; in which fact the inferiority of the law to the promise is evident. So Ltft. But if this were the thought intended to be directly conveyed by this clause, it could hardly have failed to be expressed. It seems more reasonable to take the words 6 5e 5eb? el? ea-riu
what they
directly say,
and
to
the conclusion which the expressed premises support. be objected to the view advocated above and equally to that of Ltft. that on the supposition that SiaOi^xriv is a covenant. Paul's argument in v." turns on the fact of the two parties to it. and thus that the law and the covenant are in that fact placed on the same supplied
It
is
may
basis.
But
is
in reality to
the effect that the mediator stands between the two parties, making a third, separating as
comes into direct relation with man. Moreover if, as is probably the case, and as is indicated by his use of enayyeMa for what he also calls the SiafljJKij, he shared the T thought oi the covenant as predominantly one-sided, God taking the initiative, this fact would still further tend in his mind to depreciate the law as compared with the covenant.
193
as a historical fact.
But
it is
more
likely that as
he means
so he
^^^ ^^),
same sense as throughout the passage, and that he affirms that they are not in conflict (on Kara, cf. chap. 5^^' " 2 Cor. 13^ Rom. 8^^), because they have distinct functions. Notice that it is this of which the next clause speaks. Paul admits, even affirms, that the law judges a man on a basis of works of law, and the promises on a basis of faith in this they are different the one from the other, but he contends, as against V\ihis opponents who hold that men are actually justified by law, that the law, whose sentence is always one of condemnation, was not intended to express God's attitude towards men, is not the basis of God's actual judgment of men, but is a revelation of a man's legal standing only. He will presently add that it ^ |is thus a means of bringing us to Christ (v.^^). At present he
.'
'
is
the courts are not in conflict with the pardoning powder; for
each
is
operative
is
own
guilty,
who
by careful inquiry whether his child has disobeyed his commands, and pronounces him guilty, and then using this very sentence of guilty to bring him to repentance, and discovering that he is repentant assures him of forgiveness and feUowship, is in no conflict with himself.
ascertains
ToO OeoO is omitted by B d e Victorin. Ephrem. (?) Ambrst. only. Despite the intrinsic improbability of the reading tou OeoO (the sentence
is
equally clear, more terse, and more in Paul's usual style with-
out the words), the evidence for the insertion of the words and the possibility that the omission by the few witnesses on this side is an
accidental coincidence,
is
yap
T)
ovt(jo<;
m vofiov
had been given a law that could give life, righteousness would indeed be by law." wjuo?, without the article, is a law, and undoubtedly, as the context
Tjy
av
hKaioavvri.
"For
if
there
13
194
GALATIANS
BvvdiJLvo<s
give
life."
The form
fact
of the sentence
marks
as a supposition contrary to
(BMT
248).
Such a sentence is often used to prove the from the unreality of the apodosis.
i
Cf. chap.
1^0 I
Cor. 2^
Jn.
2^^.
by law, is for the present assumed, to be proved later, in v.22. The fact thus established, that no law had been given that could give life, hence that this was not
apodosis, righteousness
the purpose of the law of Moses, is adduced as proof {yap is argumentative) that M^ yevocTo is the right answer to the question just asked, i. e., that the law is not against the promises.
The
significance,
by all authorities except B and Cyr., who read by all authorities except FG 429, 206; &\> is read by ABC Cyr. before ^v; by i^sSy 218, 191 2, 436, 462 after ^v; by 429, 206 without V; by Dbt cKLP al. pier. Chr. Thdrt. befoic Ix v6[xou; it is omitted by D* 88, 442, 1952 al. Dam. and, together with V, by FG. Alike external evidence and intrinsic and transcriptional prob'Ex
v6[Aou is attested
Iv
v6tx({>;
^v
is
attested
more commonly
cf.
inserts
places
it
chap. I"
t?, etc.,
Cor. 2ii".
Out of this
and that
of the Syrian
KLP,
etc.,
by
transposition of
of 5v
(cf.
(5v;
authorities
of
Iv
Cyr.
substitution for ex
vd^jiou
and that of FG 429, 206 by the accidental omission of ^v, the two former from the Western reading, the two latter from the original reading. It will be observed that the insertion of &v in some position is attested by all non- Western authorities, and ex vd'^ou by all authoriv6[X(j);
ties
except
Cyr.
The assumption
all
of ev
v6tJL(j)
AC
from
and then
the derivation of
against
On an
195
W.
XX 4 (WM. p. 174); Rad. p. 93; Gild. BMT 424. Cf. chap. I' 2" Acts 4'^ etc.
Ztooxotio)
p. 777;
occurs in the
Lxx
(0s6<;)
Kgs.
5';
"to save
In N. T.
to live," "to
io bring to life" (the dead): germinate" (of a seed): i Cor. is'; Rom. 8" I Cor. 1522; "to give spiritual life": Jn. 6^^ 2 Cor. 3. In the last passage it stands in antithesis to the death sentence of the
and thus acquires a certain forensic sense. It is probable that the prominent r^-^ment in the thought of the word here; that it is, in fact, the causative of ^aa> as used in v.'^ (see note on t^'^sexat That there is an associated there) and in effect means "to justify." idea of the ethical life which is imparted by the Spirit of God, as in 220 ^2s (cj_ ^16, 18) and Rom. 8'''', or of the eternal life after death, as in Rom. 8i<'' " (note esp. ")> is not improbable. Ell. and Sief. make the reference exclusively to the latter, and interpret the argument as one from effect to cause: If there were a law that could give eternal life, then justification, which is the condition precedent of such life, would be in law. This, also, is possible, but less probable than a more direct reflaw,
this
is
erence to justification in
here as in v.^^
(g.
l^cooxotiiaac.
ex v6;aou
{cf.
v.),
expresses source
its
righteousness
It
is
would have
origin in law.
is
a qualitative phrase,
forensic element in
At/.atotjuvTQ
is
is
r\
referred to
The emphasis
and
cf.
of
StxaioauvT; is doubtless
upon the
VI B
2,
The
but one
2"),
way
of acceptance with
but
etc.
22.
aXka
(Tvvfc\eL(Tev
r)
ypacfjtj
all
to,
"But
up
aWa marks
v.^^
and the
actual fact as here stated, which furnishes the proof that the
apodosis of
v.-^'',
hence also the protasis, "if a law had been given that could
give life," which that verse
fact, are actually such.
by its form implies to be contrary to That the proof is drawn from the O. T.
is
The
scripture
probably Deut.
27^^,
referred to in v.^
a passage
from the law, and cited here as embodying the verdict of the
196
law.
GALATIANS
The
reference to
v.^ and the context in general give to meaning ''under condemnation of sin," Kardpav in v.^^. All this refers, it must be
hiro dfJiapTLav
the
equivalent to vtto
Paul
is still
no
senses,
but primarily with the meaning "to shut up," "^o confine," either inceptive, "to put in confinement," or continuative, "to hold
confined."
Xtlgaq ix^poij.
So also in the Lxx, Ps. 30^ (3i0- o^ auvixXetai;? as 77 (78)^"; likewise in N. T., Lk. 5 Rom. 11".
ypacp-^ refers
-f)
e!<;
Note
the expressions
YpacpiQ (2
yP^^?"^
the singular
43 gi7
Tim. 3'Oj and the fact that elsewhere in the Pauline epistles is uniformly accompanied by a quotation (chap. 3' 4'" Rom. 10" II'). See also i Tim. 5'*. In 2 Tim. 3^, xaaa ypacfi], a
passage
is,
specific
Deut.
27^*,
quoted
to the
in v.i",
and
Ps. 143',
quoted in
2i,
makes against
itself in
it is
its
reference to a passage
the law
is,
under discussion.
Tcfe
Rom.
11", refers to
all
who
were under
6 v6[jLoq (v.'Oj
tion pertains simply to the function or rea'^on for existence of the law.
On
somewhat to and to present those referred to uxb d;j,apTtav as a solidarity, see i Cor. i" Col. i^" Eph. i^o Jn. 1710. in Rom. 71* (c/. 6i<- ") means "under the power of sin" and in Rom. 3' "sinful" (though some interpreters take it in the sense of "under condemnation"). But these single instances of the phrase in dififerent
the neuter used of persons, the rhetorical effect being
specific senses are
not
evidence of the
which
is
Iva
7]
eira'y'yeXia
TrtcrTea;?
^Irjaov
^picrrov
BoOrj
roL<i
on ground
prom-
Ill,
22
197
is
new
principle;
and a purpose
described
is
of
God, as
is
is
shown by the
this, in
that which
for
But
of
turn,
up was
itself
an act
God,
or,
more
God
from the experience under law. In other words, though to isolate the law and understand it as defining the way of salvation is wholly 10 misunderstand God's attitude towards men, yet the law was given by God to accomphsh a
to learn
I
men
certain
work preparatory
that that
\ demonstrate
fThus
1
it is
men can not be justified on grounds of merit. Paul finds a way to reconcile his rejection of the
27^).
'H exayysXta
thing promised.
is
manifesdy, as in
See
there.
vv.^^-
i^,
the promise to
Abraham,
for the
is
used by
metonymy
is
as in v.^^
more generally
is reff.
to acceptance with
God
with
ex.
all
On
rctoTeo)?
ground on which the giving (BoOfj) takes place. 'iTjaoG Xpccxou is, as always after Tiaxiq, an objective genitive. See notes on Sia xfareox;
XptaTou
'l-Qaou,
2^^.
xolq
xtaTSuouatv,
(EMT
of So6^.
to believers
is
The
repetition emphasises
fulfilled.
6.
came;
then
we were
now we
(3^^'^^).
of the
law and
19^
GALATIANS
the latter as one of custody, and that of a child under a Now, however, that that period is over and the full Christian experience of faith has come, we are no longer in
pedagogue.
subjection.
Ye
all alike,
without distincif
tion of race, status, or sex, one in Christ Jesus; but and his, then also seed of Abraham. Thus the
in him,
argument
law,
'-^sl
returns to
its
starting point in
faith came,
v.".
shut
up for
the
we were kept guarded under obtaining of the faith that was to be revealed,
law has been for us a pedagogue to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. ^^But the faith having come
that the
^-^For
many
no
slave
no Jew nor Greek, nor free, no male and female; for ye are all one in Christ
''^There is
if
put on Christ.
Jesus.
^Und
law."
By
TTjp irtaTLv is
meant not
cludes this; not generically; Paul could not speak of this as having recently come, since, as he has maintained, it was ac least as old as Abraham; nor the faith in the sense "that which is believed" {of. on 1^3); but the faith in Christ just spoken of
in
V.22.
That
fundamentally
Abraham
is
from the use of the same word, but from the apostle's definite defence of the Christian faith on the ground that the principle was established in the case of Abraham. That it was specifically different is indicated by the use of the definite article, the frequent addition of "Irjcov Xpiarov, and by the assertion of
this verse that the faith
came
law.
The phrase
and
"under
of course, that
spoken of in
same
as in v.^^
That the sub{q, v.). was not absolute, excludfaith, or justification by it,
Ill,
23
of vv.^^^-.
199
is
shown by
on
v.22b.
v.^^
real function,
Cf.
That the
though
(2
(^povpio: in itself
I
may
Pet. i^
v.^^
it
compel us to understand
avvKkeLOixevoL el?
rrjv
jiiXkovcrav
"shut up for the obtaining of the faith that w^as to be revealed." On the meaning of avvKXeiofievoi, see avveKkeiaev, vP. It is here a present participle of identical action, hence
used in
pal TO
its
Aristot. Part.
Animal. II
9.
The sense "having been put into confinement" would demand an aor. or perfect participle, the latter The participle of which some mss., most of them late, have.
aTri6o<i.
ixeWovaav, limiting
revelation
ttlo-tlu,
marks the
latter as future
from
{BMT
142); the
el?
may
Cor.
or
telic,
"in order to
i
Rom.
Acts
2^8 i
Pet.
i^-
So Th. for
this passage,
interpreting
faith
when
its
"that we might the more readily embrace the Of similar ambiguity and
is i
Pet. i^ (^povpoviievov^
hia
XO'T^
which
a salvation,"
etc.,
or "that
may mean "guarded until (we obtain) we may obtain." The temporal
is
meaning
is
not
certainly expressed
by
it,
el?
with
temporal force
is
usually followed
by a term
is
of time,
and that
it
expressed both in
to
above and
v.-'*
below,
it is
be intended here
p. 433,
also.
On
a7roKa\v(f>6rjvaL, see
g^s
i
detached note,
and
cf.
esp.
Rom.
i^^
Eph.
3^ i Pet. i^
200
24. ware 6
v6fio<;
GALATIANS
Traibayooyo^;
tj/jlcov
yeyopev
et? 'Kpicrrov
"So
that the law has been for us a pedagogue to bring us to Christ." i^ofiof; has the same significance as in v.^^, except that it is
of.
TracBaycc-
Roman
families to
have
watching over his outward behaviour and attending him whenever he went from home, as e. g. to school. See exx. below.
By
describing the law as having the functions of a Travhayoiy&i Paul emphasises both the inferiority of the condition of those
under
it,
yet arrived
{cf.
temporariness
. . .
el?
XpcaTop
may
be temporal
(cf.
on
et? rrjv
iriaTiv^
V.23)
or
may
be pregnantly used.
i^^, TCL
For
exx. of a
somewhat
8^^. 21
Rom.
Mt.
20^ I Pet.
eU ^puarov
. .
iraOrjjjLaTa,
In view of the
and
of
is
BtKaioiOcofxev,
it
Yet
prob-
men
are thought of
as coming; the functions of the iraiSayoiyo^ were not so exclusively to take the
boy
and the
and
in this passage
men were
Christ.
not of him as a teacher but as one through faith in whom to be saved. Nor is the reference to the individual
men
individually to faith in
is
it
speak-
upon another and the displacement of the law by Christ. 25 a_ jjg^y ^-jig law accompHshed its task is in no way intimated in this word or phrase, but appears in the final clause following, and the repeated intimations of the
tion
entire context.
See esp.
v.^^.
Cf.
Th.
s.
v.
tt ai8
ay o^yo';.
On
SI xal
the use of the word xatBaycoyoi;, see Hdt. 8": St'xtwoq, olxizriq
xatBaywybq
-^v
Eur.
Io7i, 725,
w xpia^u
and
loc.
Ill,
dfpxstv asauToO,
24-25
lq>T),
201
extTpixouotv;
t
9^
'AXX'
IJLT^v;
Mwv
if)p.iTsp6<;
ye,
I'^v].
eyco,
(2p5^ea6ac.
IcpY], e(<;
xl Se
"Aywv
Sirixou,
StSaaxdiXou.
31 : orav ye
ex xafSwv eJg
(xev dtxb xoct-
cb
SXkoi xauouat
dxb
axtixxovTcq xal
in
Plutarch's Lives.
of
in
moral education" this passage has little or no connection. For further treatment and references, see Becker, Charicles, E. T. 4th ed., pp. 226/.; Becker and Marquardt, Rom. Alt. vol. I, pp. 114, 122, 164; Girard, L' Education A Ihenienne, pp. ii4#-; Cramer, De Educatione Puethe sense ot
'*
rorum apud Atheniensts, Marburg, 1823. Harper^s Dictionary of Classical Lit. and Antiq., art. "Education"; KDB, art. "Schoolmaster";
further references to sources in L.
&
S. s. v.
Xva
eic TTicrreiC'^
hKaiOidcoixev
"that we might be
v.^^
justified
by
faith."
its
The
law in
function as 7ratSa7oo7o9, as
expresses the
immeis
The emphasis
e/c
of the expression
if
on
not on
Trto-reco?,
as
ways
of justification,
of the law
was that we
Cf.
ifc
might be
TTtcrreo;?
the apostle
no other way.
'Kpiarov
2^^^,
w^hich
is
similarly
added
for complete-
ness,
and with descriptive rather than restrictive force. On e/c Trtb-reco?, cf. also on 2^'^^ (pp. 121, 123), and on ZiKaiuiOoijiev see detached note on Ai'/caio?, etc., p. 473.
the meaning of
25. eXBovar]'^ he
Tr]<:
Trtcrreo;?
"But
ence
come we
gogue."
is
The
as in
article
with
Trtcrreco? is restrictive,
and the
ovk6tl
is
refer-
tem-
poral,
on
3^^.
The phrase
cerns the fact referred to, to viro voixov, the epithet being substituted for the
name; but conveys more clearly than viro voiiov and inferior standing. The coming of
202
the faith
is
GALATIANS
a historic event, identical with the giving of the
4*^
gospel (see
individuals.
Rom.
on
i^^- ^^),
Cf.
v.^^
How far
event was
itself
how
thought here.
26. lidvTe^
'lyaov.
yap
7rLcrre<jJ<i
eV
'KpiaTw
Christ Jesus."
By
first
person of
\\^^%
with
its
some such phrase as, That Trdvre^ is emphatic is indicated by its position, but esp. by the continuation of the thought of universality in v.^^. It may then mean "all you
as often, directly related,
which ydp
^'And
you."
if,
as
is
possible, there
were some Jews in the Galatian churches, it may mean "all you Galatians," emphasising the fact that the statements of
V.25
apply to
all
Jews.
out the
and
7ratSayo)y6v
"sons of
pression
favour,
Titles
Abraham"
therefore,
2^).
The emphasis
of the ex-
is,
upon "sons
of
God"
as objects of God's
men in filial favour with God. See detached note on and Predicates of Jesus, V, p. 404. Cf. 4*' ^ for the expression of the thought that subjection to law and sonship to God are mutually exclusive. That eV XptaTw 'Irjaov does not limit TTiVreco? is evident because Paul rarely employs eV after ttlg-tl'; (see, however. Col. i^ Eph. i^^), and in this letter always uses the genitive (2^^- 20 322)^ but especially because VV.27, 28 ^^-^Q ^ip aj-i(^ dwell upon the fact that the Galatians are And this fact in turn shows that, unless Paul in Christ Jesus. shifts his thought of the meaning of eV after he has used it
before
sense,
X/Dto-ro) 'Irjaov,
it
has here
in
its
metaphorical spatial
live,
whom
the beUevers
with
Ill,
25-27
203
whom
but makes
TTto-rt?
this
eV
but Hmiting an earher element of the sentence, see r^? TTicrreco?, standing then withatfJiaTL Rom. 3^5.
may
25^
cf. 2
Cor.
The
latter is
more prob25.
On
u'tol
OeoO, see
on chap.
4^.
yap ekXptarov i^aTTTLcrOrjTe, XptdTov iveBvaaaOeof you as were baptised unto Christ did put on The fact that the verbs are in the second person, Christ." requires the insertion of the words "of you" into the translaBut it must not be tion, though they are not in the Greek.
27. oaoL
as
"For
many
this
would be
tism,
itself
in
effect
By
bap-
undoubtedly
refers to Christian
immersion in water. See Th. s. v. II; Preusch. s. v.; M. and M. Voc. s. v. This is the uniform meaning and application of the term in Paul (i Cor. i^^-n 1213 1529 Rom. 6^), with the single exception of i Cor. 102, where he speaks of the baptism of the Israelites into Moses in the cloud and in the sea as a thing of similar character and significance with Christian
baptism.
as in
Mk.
Jn.
i^sb
Acts
et?
Xpiarov
2 a),
is
probably
to be taken here
and
in
Rom.
6^ in
II
and as equiva-
below.
"To put on
Christ"
is
is
become as Christ, to have become objects of the divine By C/. 4^' \ the Son of God.
the whole sentence the apostle reminds his readers that they,
204
\
GALATIANS
it is
God
like that
/sons of God,
I
of the significance
of their baptism.
writers.
6ttevot,
The idiom evSusaOat with a personal Thus in Dion. Hal. Antiq. ii.
pftj^ai;
object
5',
is
A. D.),
"He
of the sophist."
It occurs
once
in
wq
aCiv
vutJ-^Tj,
and several
Rom.
13**:
iXXd
xal
^v8uCTd:[i.evot
Eph.
4""2<, dicoO^tjOat
xbv xaXatbv
dvOptoxov
The
^8
Mac.
i^';
and a sim-
figure with
1312: ev5uaa);j.eGa
. .
.
IvSuaatjGat dOavaat'av.
x-f)v
15":
6'*,
evSuairjxat dc8avaa(av.
Eph.
xfi<;
6'': ev86-
caaOe
evSuadixevot xbv
Gwpaxa
Stxo;ioauvt]<;.
axXdYX"^a olxxtptioO. i Th. 5*, evSuad^J-evot Gwpaxa These passages show that the idiom conveyed no suggestion of putting on a mask, but referred to an act in which one entered into actual relations. Used with an impersonal object, it means "to acquire," "to make a part of one's character or possessions" (i Thes. 5 I Cor. 15"- " Rom. 13" Col. 3^2)1 ^vith a personal object it
Col. 3^': v5ucaa6e
signifies
to,
Rom.
it
i3>< Col.
3"; note
cj.
makes
means "acting the part of Tarquinius," "standing in and Libanius. This meaning is appropriate to the present passage. The fact that the Galatians have put on Christ is cited as proof that they are sons of God as Christ is the Son of God. The preposition e(<; with ^axxft^w signifies (a) literally and spatially "into," followed by the element into which one is plunged: Mk. i'; cf.
his shoes,")
i;
(b)
followed
"unto" in the telic sense, "in order to obtain": Acts 2"; (c) by Svo^ia, "with respect to," specifically, "with mention or
Ill,
27
19';
205
with similar force
but without the use of Svofxa: Acts 19'. It was formerly much discussed whether here and in Rom. 6' the meaning is the same as in fellowship with," Th. I Cor. I"' ", etc., or whether elq signifies "into al. hold; Sief. combines (c/. pax'cfi;(o, II b. aa) Ell., S. and H. on Rom., et the two views. As between the two the former is to be preferred, for, though the conception of fellowship with Christ in his death is expressed in the context of Rom. 6', neither general usage of the phrase
nor that passage in particular warrant interpreting ^axTt't;(^ tiq as having other than its usual meaning, "to baptise with reference to." But if this is the case with Rom. 6', then usage brings to the present
passage no warrant for finding in it any other than the regular meaning of the phrase, and the context furnishing none, there is no ground for discovering it here. More recent discussion, however, has turned upon 8' the question whether in both groups of passages (i Cor. i"- " Acts
name
Rom. 6' and here) there is a reference to the use of the baptism with supposed magical effect, as in the mystery religSee Preusch. s. v. ^axxiXw and literature there referred to, esp. ions. HeitmuUer, Tauje und Abendmahl; also Lake, The Earlier Epistles of
i9,
as well as
in
St.
Paul, pp. 383-391; Case, The Evolution of Early Christianity, pp. it must suffice to point 347 /. For the purposes of this commentary out the following outstanding facts affecting the interpretation of
Paul's thought: (a)
ability derived
The use of ^axTf^w elq -cb Svo^ia was in all probfrom the usage of the mystery religions, and to one familiar with that usage would suggest the ideas associated with such (b) The apostle constantly lays emphasis on faith and phraseology,
the Spirit of
God
(see, e. g., 5-
^-
would seem that if, denying all spiritual value to such a physical rite as circumcision, he ascribed effective force to baptism, his arguments should have turned, as they nowhere do, on (c) i Cor. lo'-i^ makes it the superiority of baptism to circumcision,
It
probable that the Corinthians were putting upon their Christian baptism the interpretation suggested by the mystery religions, viz., that Against this view Paul protests, using the it secured their salvation.
case of the Israelites passing through the Red Sea, which he calls a baptism into Moses, to show that baptism without righteousness does not render one acceptable to God. This may, of course, signify only that he conceived that the effect of baptism was not necessarily per-
manent, or that to baptism it is necessary to add a righteous life. But that docit is most naturally interpreted as a protest against precisely trine of the magical efficiency of physical rites which the mystery If this is the case and if the thought of religions had made current. the apostle here is consistent with that in i Cor. 10, the relation between
the fact referred to in the relative clause and that of the principal
2o6
clause
is
GALATIANS
not (as in 3'
ised fact.
Rom. S^*) causal, but that of symbol and symbolThe requirement of the passage that there shall be a natural
connection of thought both between this v. and the preceding, and between the two clauses of this, is met by supposing (i) that the exceptional mention of baptism in this passage (as, e. g., instead of faith)
was suggested by
cision
{cf.
its
>2)
which the Galatians were being urged to accept, and (2) that there was something in the act of baptism as thought of by the apostle which suggested the figure of being clothed with Christ. This may have been that in baptism one was, as it were, clothed with
Col. 2".
the water, or, possibly, that the initiate was accustomed to wear a
To such a relation in thought between fact and outward symbol there can be, despite Lake's statement that such a thought was almost unknown to the ancients, no serious objection in view of Gal. 220 Rom. 5" i Cor. ii"'. If, indeed, the relation is causal, the apostle must have changed his conception of the matter between the writing of Gal. and i Cor., or he conceived of the rite as having no necessarily permanent effect and its value as conditioned upon the maintenance of a morally pure life.
special garment.
28. ouK
iXevOepo^ij
evL
ov/c
'lovSato?
evL
ovhe "^Wr^v,
OrjXv'
ovk
evi
is
BovXo^ ovBe
apaev Kal
free,
"There
no Jew nor
Follov^ing the
illative,
demand
any
specific element of what immediately precedes. With the thought of the basis of acceptance with God in mind, expressed
form that through faith men become sons of God, and in v.^^ in a different form, the sweep of his thought carries him beyond the strict limits of the question at issue in Galatia
in V.26 in the
to
afhrm that
all
and
5^,
to present
an
in
and imphed
Col.
3^^, is
It is
men can
That he
is
to
do
in,
slavery.
Cf. i Cor.
e.
71^-2''.
27-28
207
writers, quoted,
g.,
Nor are the passages from ancient by Zahn ad ioc. ^p. 187), in which these
distinctions are emphasised, directly antithetical to this affirmaYet that the principle had its indirect tion of the apostle.
social significance is
incident
2^^-''',
and
in
of the
Antioch
On "EX^.Tjv, meaning Gentile, not specifically Greek, see on 2*. gvt, not a contracted form of evcuxt, but a lengthened form of ev. hi with recessive accent, but having the force of eveaxt or eveict, as xapd: and xapsaxt, may, like the form eici are used v/ith the force of exeaTt and
iveoTi itself,
mean
i
either "it
is
is
possible."
See
W.
XIV
neugriechische Grammatik,
given in L.
207, and the examples of both meanings without assigning reasons, maintains that oiix possibility," and evt must here negative "not the fact only but the RV. adopts this interpretation in all the N. T. instances: Jas. i^^
&
S.
Ltft.,
But
in
none
is
of these pas-
demand
this
meaning, and
clearly "it
is
It
sary therefore
to
make
by
two meanings
the context.
And
"there is" (so Sief. Bous.) rather than "there can be." nothing in the sentence to suggest that Paul has passed from the statement of fact to that of possibilities. On the other hand, it is apparently
true that the
meaning There is
loses the
force derived
from
Iv as
after it
by
for
but
Iv Xpca-cw, as
7rdvT<;
all
it
yap
vfxek
eU eare
eV
Xpicrrw
'\7)a-ov.
"for ye are
one in Christ Jesus." These words confirm, by repeating eh in another form, the thought of the preceding sentence, be taken distributively and qualitatively, or inclusively In the former case the meaning is: once in
may
and numerically.
Jew
if it i
man
or
woman,
all
no respect
of persons
with God)
it is
as
CJ.
were always the same person In the latter case the Cor. 3^
2o8
thought
I
GALATIANS
is
that
Cf.
i
all
sonaHty.
little
Cor. lo^^
^o^n.
i24'
Col. 3^^
ground
for
Only
is
equally Pauline and equally suitable to the immediate context. in the fact that the second interpretation furnishes a
sort of middle
v.^^^
that Christ
that those
who
of
Abraham
is
terpretation,
'Irjaov is
and
only in case
^^^ is
from Paul.
they
eV
yipLarw
v.^^,
whom
God
is
also determined.
al. pier.
XptaTw
'iTjaou:
so
i^'BCDKLP
some mss. omit 'IirjaoG) Clem. Athan. Chrys. Euthal. Thdrt. al.; Iv iaii: FG 33, d e f g Vg. Or. Athan Bas. al.; late XptaxoCi 'Iyjcjou, omitting elq: J<A,
but
I.
has
^? is
thus a witness to ev X.
I.
as well as
to the genitive.
With
X.
can be no doubt that the reading of the latter is derivative, due to assimilation to v.^'. Before iaxi, dq is clearly the original reading, changed by Western authorities to h, as in 3" oq is changed
J<
against
to
by a part
29.
el
of the
Western documents.
Se
vjiel'^
iTrayyeXiav
/cXrjpovofiOL.
''And
if
ye seed of Abraham, heirs according to promise." Be is continuative, the new sentence adding fresh inferences from what has already been said. The conditional clause, expressing in
itself
a simple supposition,
refers, as is
something ^assumed to be true. ^Aiet? XpcaTov is 244. assumed to have been previously affirmed or implied, and doubtless in el? eV XpLarw 'It/ctoO or in eV Xptaro) 'Irjaov alone.
BMT
Of these
there
is
is
more probable,
since
ing to carry forward the idea of the unity of believers in one body, or their equal standing before God. Had this been his purpose, he must have employed some such phraseology as that of I Cor. 12^2, 27^ qj. Rom. 12^, e. g., eh [or ev ac^fxa] ev
Ill,
28-29
209
probably, therefore, the
cf. vv.^i- 22;
'KpL(TTa>, or
TO
(rdijia
^ptaTov.
i
More
Cor.
genitive
S^'
is
to be taken, as in
its
3^3 ;
also
Rom.
\ with
who have
S^^- ^^,
the spirit of
Rom.
the
expressed in v.^
but repeated in variant phraseology in vv.^- ^^ The prize which the opponents of Paul had held before the eyes of the Galatians, and by which they hoped to persuade them to accept
become subjects of the law, was the privilege becoming seed of Abraham, and so heirs of the promise to him and to his seed. This prize, the apostle now assures the
circumcision and
of
Galatians, belongs to
Christ's, as in v.^
them by virtue
he had said it belongs to those who are of In the phrase /car' eirayyekiav KXrjpovofxoc both nouns faith. are quahtative, but the substance of the thought recalls
the previous mention of the promise and the inheritance in
yy_i4.
16, 17,
Abrahamic
sonship that
is
On
the
The
Kkr^povoiiia
is,
v.
and
cf.
v.^"),
blessing of justification.
(jirepiia is significant.
The absence
of
Abraham,"
Paul does not say to his readers, "Ye as he might perhaps have done if,
Observe, also,
are Christ,"
is
"ye
Though
to
Rom.
mention
nate
its
of
1^"*,
yet
(Tirepixa^
being
without the
constituting
It
may desig-
privilege
of
Abrahamic
seed.
Tou6ato? Rom.
is
If
we suppose
this effect:
v.^^,
the reasoning
probably to
2IO
''
GALATIANS
you belong
to Christ,
If
who
is
the seed of
If v.^^^ is
may
be more akin to that of the passages cited above (i Cor. 32^-23 Rom, 8^^' 32): ''If ye are Christ's then by virtue of that fact you
are objects of God's approval," which for the purposes of argu-
his
in
their
"acceptable to God."
ham"
of its
synonym for objects of God's approval; the occasion employment was its use by those whose views and arguis
ments Paul
the Gentiles
is
its
application to
of
in
their
relation
to
Christ.
The matter
doubt
of
whether a previous designation of Christ as the seed Abraham (v.^^^) furnished the ground for applying the term
is
quahtatively to those
reasoning
to Christ.
is
who
7.
Continuation of the argument for the inferiority of the cofidition under law, with the use of the illustration of guardianship
(4^-'').
Still
lose, not gain, by putting themselves under the law, Paul compares the condition under law to that of an heir who is placed under a guardian for a period fixed by the father and in that tim.e has no freedom of action, and describes it as a
they would
bondage under the elements of the world. Over against this he sets forth the condition into which they are brought by
Christ as that of sons of God, living in
ship with God.
filial
and joyous
fellow-
^Now I
from a
way
slave,
though he
is lord
of
all, "-but is
when we
were children, were enslaved under the elements of the world. *But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of
woman, made
Ill,
29-IV, 2
the adoption.
211
^And because ye
into your hearts,
God
Son
Abba,
Se,
Father.
Ae7<^
'e<^'
ocrov
XP^^^'^
^ icKrjpovoixo^
viqino^
ianv,
TOV
mv, 2.
Trj<;
aWci
viro eiri-
Kot
oiKOVoixov^
cLXpi
7rpo6e(TfiLaq
Trarpo?.
in
"Now
is
a child, he
differs
no way from a slave, though he is lord of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time set by the father." Though the argument introduced in y^ was brought to a conclusion in V.29 with a reversion to the thought of 3^ the apostle
now
5I6);
takes
XeT^
Be; cf.
on
3^^
and
and
availing himself of the familiar custom of guardianship of current laws or usages concerning it, he compares the
who
in his
youth
his father,
though prospective
and charargument is in I'TJTTto?, Sov\o<;, and vTrb iTnTpoirov^ koI olicovoixov^ which he employs to describe the condition of those under law; its nrarpo^ which suggests that the persuasive element is in axpi.
to guardians,
The
sting of the
to be free.
The term xX^jpovoixot;, "heir," suggests that the illustration is taken from the law or custom of inheritance, the son inheriting from a deceased father (xaxpoq) under the will of the latter. Nor does this element of the illustration create serious incongruity between illustration
and thing
illustrated.
For an illustration is not necessarily and there is no decisive reason why the apostle
should not illustrate the condition of the Jewish nation or of the human race in the period of law by that of a son who is under guardians awaiting an appointed time to take possession of the property left him by his father's will; the point of the illustration lying not in the condition
of the father, but in the relation of the son to his guardians.
But
neither does vXri?owj.oq necessarily imply that in the illustration, still less in the thing illustratd, the father is dead in the period of the
xXT]pov6tJ.oq
212
GALATIANS
ply to describe the son as the one
property.
p. 496.
N-rj-Tutoq,
who
is
tov,
and
on
AtaOT]XT3,
writers
in
and
properly "one without understanding," is used by Greek in the Lxx both in this sense and with the meaning "child";
N. T. apparently in the latter sense (i Cor. 13" Eph. 4'^ with the added implication of immaturity, intellectual or moral. No instance has been pointed out of its use as a technical term for a minor, a child not possessed of manhood's rights, but it is evidently this characteristic xuptoq is used of a child that the apostle here has specially in mind, in the sense, rather infrequent in N. T., of "owner," with the added
idea of control.
cessive.
Cf.
Mt.
2o 21".
The
participle ov
is,
of course, con-
See
Bi/r
437.8.
x-al
The phrase
I'xtTpdxous
o(xov6[jlou<;
has given
rise to
much
dis-
cussion as to the precise meaning of the words and the law which the
apostle has in mind.
The
difficulty,
excTpoxo<;.
This
Legg.
is
See Plato,
VI 766 C:
I.
Dem.
Ittq.
988-:
TOUTtov
'Apt'aTccixtJi-O'?
IxfTpoxoq
y.al x-riSetJ-wv
eyevsO' exxat'Bsxa
Xen.
Mem.
voixwv.
2":
iJLev
'ki'iz'zai
elvac, IleptxXel
extTp6x(p
dxb
TauTT^q youv
auToIq.
on the other hand, usually denotes a slave acting as house-steward for his master, or an employed steward acting as agent for See i Ki. 4 18' i Esd. 4*' Lk. i2 i6 his principal, or a treasurer.
otxovd^JLoq,
Rom.
gospel
16".
is
it
whom
the
entrusted,
Cor.
4'
There
is
no
minor
heir,
and
in particular
oExov6;j.o<;
no other instance
a period a
two
(of
little later
see
ad loc, p. 234) the minor was under a tutor till his fourteenth But year, and thereafter under a curator until his twenty-fifth year. against the supposition that it was this usage that Paul had in mind is
Sief.
d'y.P' '^^'^
Roman
law
the time during which the child was under the tutor and curator respectively. On xpo6ea^(a<;, a frequent legal term, see Dem. 95218; Plato, Legg. XII 954 D,* etc. Cf. Job 28' Dan. 9=" (Sym.).
itself fixed
It is
not found in
Aa/3e
5jj
Lxx and
*Dem. 952":
fie
/not
Plato, Legg.
Kar
aypovs if
"""j M'jSe-
atfiavel (ceKTTjrai,
SeKa
eruiv,
eav
5*
o-^'^PJl
IV,
1-2
213
that Paul refers to the law followed in Greco-Phrygian and cites the Syrian law book of the fifth century a. d., accordRoman law except ing to which the practice was the same as under the under Roman law the father appointed only the tutor, that whereas father and could not appoint the curator, under the Syrian law the charge appointed both the licCxpoxoq who, like the Roman tutor, had
Ramsay holds
cities,
of the child
till
he reached the age of fourteen, and the curator who of the property till the son was twenty-five years
is
But aside from the fact that it found in a Syrian law book of the
cities in
fifth
the
first
century,
Ram.
century was in force in Phrygian overlooks the fact that this usage is
about equally at variance with the language of Paul, who says nothing who appoints the iTzlxpoToq and ohoy6[ioq but does indicate that the
their control. father fixes the time at which the son passes from under far as has been pointed e. g., Athenian, law there was, so In Greek,
out,
eiziipo-Koq
and
oty.ov6[jLOs.
xTQBe^xwv
in
Dem.
988^ as a double
passage above) suggests that we should not and those seek to distinguish between the functions of the i%hgo'izoq for XYjSetxcTjv of the ofxovoixoq, but regard olr.ow[).oq as Paul's synonym
one person
also, and, like that word, a further description of the ex(Tpoxoq. Cf., demenSeneca, De Bcneficiis, Lib. IV, chap. XXVII, ad fin.: quomodo spoliatorem: tissime testabitur, qui tutorem filio reliquerit pupillorum
who
who
difficulty
courteously
following translation *Bruno und Sachau, Syr.-rom. Rechishuch, Leipzig, 1880. In the made from the Syriac text for this work by Professor Martin Sprengling, have been retained as they stand Ph.D., of the University of Chicago, e^trpoTros and curator, The Syriac terms have been rendered literally because the transliterated in the Syriac text.
officers, viz., "guardian," English has but one term covering the functions of both classes of "The law (vdiaoO is asked: the use of which for both Syriac words would be confusing. girl up to twelve Can minors make a will (SiaerJKas), and at what age can they do it? A
years
in command, and can subject to the entTpoTros, which, being translated, is the one (5iaOrjrr,). But when she has passed twelve years, she passes from subordiwhich, being translated, nation to the eTTiTpoTTo? and comes to be under that of the curator, And from the time when the girl is subject to the curator, she has authority is exammer. Thus also a boy, until fourteen years, is under the authority ol to make a will {5ia9rj/ci)). But from fourteen years and upward he the ^7rtTpo77os, and can not write a will (8ia07jK>j). curator and may write a will (SiaerJKrj), if he choose. But is under the authority of the years; and from twenty-five minors are under the authority of the curator up to twenty-five man die and leave children years the boy is a perfect man and the giri a full woman. If a eirtVpoTros [or curator] for the orphans, and make a will (5ta9r}Kr,) and appoint therein an
is
"Those who by
istrators."
appointed curators, the law (i^o/xo?) provides that they because the owners of the property chpse to establish them admin-
214
Jhat
GALATIANS
fixed
we have no knowledge of a guardianship the period of which is by the father. If, therefore, the apostle is speaking of inheriis still
otherwise definitely
known
to us.
In view of this
fact, recourse
may
lished for special reasons during the lifetime of the father, such as
illustrated in the case of
Antiochus Epiphanes and his son, Antiochus Eupator. In i Mac. 3"' " it is stated that Antiochus Epiphanes, being about to go on a military expedition into Persia, left Lysias ezl
TcpayiJLaTwv
l(i)<;
Ttov
tou
^aaiX^toq
xal
i
xpscpctv
6^'
'Avt^o^ov
it is
Tbv
ulbv
aixoQ
In
Mac.
said that
when
these
Lysias
knew
up Antiochus,
(expecj^ev).
his son, to
whom
he had brought up
From
two passages it appears that Antiochus, the father, appointed Lysias to be steward of the affairs of the kingdom and guardian of his son until a specified time, in effect directing that such stewardship and
guardianship terminate by the resumption of authority by the father
on
all
his return, or
by
While,
by Paul do not
occur, equivalents of
three of
them
(extTpoxoq,
i
olv.o'vo^ioq,
TcpoOeatxtoq
is,
tou iiaxpoq)
are
Mac.
This equivalence
2
what confirmed by
[jLdcTwv
certain passages in
ttjv 2
Mac.
iii
In
lo'i it is
ficcatXetav,
and
thereafter, in
Mac.
and
y.a\
13^
Ixl
{cf.
also 14^),
Lysias
twv xpaYfAaTcov,
the son, on
"guardian
father
oflEice
Thus
acquiring his throne, re-established for himself the relation which his
Mac. employs
to designate the
If
be supposed that these passages were before the apostle's mind, or that he had in mind such a case as that of Antiochus Epiphanes and
his son, his
may
case of a father
the same time exkpoxoq and o?xov6txo<; and who was to hold that office for a period the limit of which was indicated by the father. The two terms would not then designate different persons, but two functions of one person, and the plural would
under the
be a qualitative plural.
It
is,
ing of the passage that the situations compared are alike even in the
fact that the father, corresponding to
the stewardship.
minor orphan,
in
God, is still alive in the period of Yet reference to an ordinary guardianship of a the terms of some existing legal usage not definitely
w, 2-3
known
215
Fortunately the application of to us, remains a possibility. the illustration to the condition of men under law is but little affected by any uncertainty respecting the source of the illustration
3. ovTco^
Kal
rj/Jiel^,
ore
rjiiev
vrjiriot,
rov
Koafiov
rjixeOa
hehovko^ixevoi'
"So
also
children,
qiiel^ is
were enslaved under the elements of the world." best understood as referring to Christians generally,
with the Gentile Galatians especially in mind, yet the use of the same or the equivalent expressions with reference to those
who
are included under the first person, ?7Met?, and those who are addressed (in the second person), together with the change in pronoun or the person of the verb when there is no antithesis but,
of reference
is
required
by
the argument, shows that these grammatical changes do not mark a substantial change of persons denoted. CJ. ij^et? hehovko^lievoL of v.^ with ovKeTi el SovXo^ of v.^ (notice
especially the impUcation of ovktl that the persons addressed
same
who
constitute the subject of vTroXd^o^iiev that in v.^ ^M^^ is used of those who are the subject of the verb eVre, and that it there is scarcely less clear from the nature of the argument that
is
of emphasis
change of persons referred to (other than the change above mentioned) in passing from v.^ to v.^ A comparison of vtto ra aroi'xelci rod Kocrfiov ijiieOa SeSovXccfievoc
no
real
ra
arocxela
oh
same
implying that the previous condition of the Galatians, as well as that to which they are now in danger of turning, was a bondage to the o-roi%eta, while v.^ as dis-
marks them as having previously been worshippers of idols, and 3^-^ shows that they had come to faith in Christ not through Judaism as proselytes, but directly from their worship
tinctly
2l6
of idols.
GALATIANS
On
For a change
of person similar
v.^, cf. 3^^
and
Jews and Gentiles are therefore classed together as being before the coming of Christ in the childhood of the race, and in bondage, and the knowledge of religion which the Jews possessed in the law is classed with that which the Gentiles
notes there.
possessed without
the world,"
it
under the
to, crrot^j^eta
tov kocf^ov.
what
is
common
Rom.
2"- ^^
SD*FG.
sives
33, 442, 463 read rixeGa BsSouX.; Clem. Chrys. Euthal. Thdrt. read ^[xsv.
r]\iBv
ABCD^
et
common ^;xev
the unusual
Ti^xsOa
would be substituted
tov
')(^p6vov,
e^aTricrTetXev 6 6eo^
vojjlop^
"But when
of all
God
Son, born of
woman, made
was
subject to law."
important events, and so pre-eminently that of the comfixed in the purpose of of early Christianity
i^o; cf.
ably a
common thought
Acts
1726
78-30^ etc.
Eph.
Tob. 14O.
It
3^6 56).
by the
tion
Dan.
g"^^-) is
not here or
elsed.
where
in
the
epistles
clearly indicated.
it
Cf.
Bous. Rel.
Jud.^, pp.
278/.
(cf.
That
on
i^) is
was associated
in his
mind with
did not
mark
was
6eb<;
future.
IV,
3-4
217
life
{cf.
Acts
in view of the
apostle's belief in
i
and
of the
lJ^op(^rj
6eov,
This
is
also confirmed
by the two
2^* ^)
(cf.
Phil.
to
which the Son was in the sending forth subjected, the descent
to
the
level
of
those
whom
he came to redeem.
For
if
among men,
as a prophet
is
pressions would
forth,
mark
and there would be no suggestion of humiliation, but, rather, the contrary. Yet on the other hand, e^airedTeCKev
need not, probably should not, be Hmited to the entrance into the world by and at birth, but should rather be understood
as extending to,
and
among
men
On
D,
p.
evidence that the phrase here refers to the pre-existent Son and
to
the
filial
also
^'
7.
The phrase
yevoixevov
yvvauKo^
can
not
be interpreted as excluding
human
paternity, as
some
interpreters,
Sief.
both ancient and modern, have maintained {cf. and Zahn ad loc). See, e. g., Job 14^, ^porb^; yevvrjro'i yvvaiKo^. Mt. 11", eV yevvrjToi<^ yvpacKMv. It could be reasonably supposed to imply birth from a virgin only in case it were otherwise established that the apostle knew and accepted
the
dogma
was
so born,
then would
to
be certain that
this
this aspect of Jesus' birth. But of such knowledge or acceptance the writings of the apostle give no hint. yvvaLKo^
is
2l8
GALATIANS
is
woman."
it
On
vtto vo^xov^
cf.
3^^
There
no occasion to take
it
See note on
to deliver
It
came
men.
Cor. 9^
See
who
are in Christ
i
still
Cf. also
Rom.
2^,
is
but
God and
said to be subject.
That Paul
own
thinking a legalist is wholly improbable; the subjection to law was, doubtless, rather in the fact of his hving under legalistic Judaism, obliged to keep its rules and conform to its usages.
The motive
cf. 2
is
doubtless to em-
phasise the cost at which the Son effected his redemptive work;
Cor. 8^
Tb
x>.if)pw;jLa is
fills,"
must
is
before
its
last
increment
It
is,
called xXTQpco[i,a.
in the
t)
yevotxevov
uxb
Yev6[jLvov
Yuvaiy.oq
evidently refers to
birth, that
referlies
This idea
is,
Had
"born" in both phrases, he could have done ambiguously by the use of Ysw-rjO^vxa. Concerning the time
nothing decisive.
participles
Both
used
with xbv
may
be expressed
in English
to law."
m^ent of the aorist presents the birth and the subjection to law as in
fact,
relation to e^axiaxetXsv
to be inferred solely from the nature of the facts referred to (BAf T 142,
143).
The thought
is
IV,
4-5
219
(BMT
449,
so
450).
to
But the phrases are best accounted for as intended not express the accompaniments of the sending as directly to the Son, describing the relation to humanity and the law
performed his mission.
much
characterise
in
which he
5.
vo/jlop
The phrase
viro vojiov
is,
doubt-
to be taken in the
legalistically
law"
same sense as in v.'^ and 3^3, viz.: "under understood. But while in those cases the
is
the O. T.
above on the inclusiveness of r)ixel<; in V.'' and note the second person in v.^, with its unambiguous inclusion of the Galatian Gentiles) imphes that roij^ viro vofiov
includes both Jews
That Paul conceived the and that of divine origin, appears from Rom. 2^4' ^^ (cf. i^^- '^^); and though the phrase vtto voixov is usually employed with reference to the legalism that grew up on Jewish soil, yet that Paul was aware that the law whose work is written in the heart might also be externalised and made legahstic is intrinsically probable and is confirmed by I Cor. 9'*', where toT? viro voixov, standing as a middle term between TouSatbi? and rot? avoixoL^^ seems to designate
and
Gentiles.
those,
of legalism.
whether Jew or Gentile, who were Hving under a system On the use of e^a7opa^a;, see on 3^^, p. 168. That
is from the law, is implied in tov<; and the absence of any other phrase to suggest another enslaving power. That it is from subjection to law, i. e., (a) from the obligation to obey legal ordinances, and (b) from the conception of God which legalism imphes, is shown as respects the former (a) by v.^^ and 5^-'', and as respects the The whole clause latter (b) by the following clause and vv.'^- ^
only
of
e^airecFTeCkev only,
but of
the whole
is
implied
human
birth
and subjection
to law
were contributory
20
And
relation
this in turn
GALATIANS
conveys an intimation that Paul already had a
5'-'
redemptive work.
life of Jesus and Yet how he conceived that the deliverance was complished, whether as in 3'^ through his death, or through his life
acex-
perience reaching
its
(c/.
Phil.
2'- ),
this verse in
no way decides.
2i,
into the
enjoyment
filial
to statutes,
and that
this
was embodied
is
improbable, but
Xva
TTjif
we might
in
receive the
adoption."
found in inscriptions
the phrase
KaO' vioOeaiav
and
rarely in
Greek
literature
(Diog. Laert.
IV
9 occur in the
(53),
epistles.
veaviaKOiv
not
Lxx and
9^ it
4^2
In Rom.
{cf.
of
God
is
Exod.
who
are led
by God's
Spirit,
spirit of
and bondage
S^^
whereby we
cry,
Abba, Father."
In Rom.
vlo6e(Tia is defined
body
(cf.
does
I
man
men
God
Cor. 15"'
In Eph.
i^
adoption
is
spoken of as that
which
Christ.
are foreordained of
is,
God
V vloOecFia
men
him
and
the
may
one inclusive experience. The article restrictive, pointing to the thought of vv.^appointed of the father the child
tutors
is
is,
doubtless,
IV,
5-6
fully
^^i
developed
father as a
m V.
uloOsaca occurs,
satisfy most of the passages in which no occasion to depart from the etymologiThis does not, however, justify cal sense, "installation as a son." reading back into v.i the idea of adoption, and from this again carrying for Paul is not it back through >cXT5pov6[i.oq into the Zia^x-q of 3'% He employs careful to maintain the consistency of his illustrations.
here his usual term because he is speaking of the establishment of those who have previously not had the privileges of a son in the full
enjoyment of them.
Whether
Yva
dcxoTvCt^.
co-ordinately with that clause, expresses the purpose of e^ax^a-uetXev important. is impossible to say with certainty; nor is the distinction
6.
"Ort Be iare
vIol,
e^anredTeCkev 6
rjiicov,
6eo<^
to irvevfxa
tov
vlov avTov
eU
Ta<;
Kap8ia?
"And
God
The
. .
clause ort
is naturally interpreted as causal, giving reason in the divine mind for the act e^airedTeiXev the r)iiCiv, there being no verb of saying or the like for it to depend
. .
vlo{
upon
for
Nor is there any sufficient reason as an object clause. departing from this obvious interpretation. It follows, however, that the feonship here spoken of being antecedent to
of the^bestowal of the Spirit is not the full, achieved fact, nor the consciousness of a filial relation, but the first and objective stage which the preceding context has em-
phasised, viz.: release from bondage to law, figuratively described as a pedagogue or guardians
volved
in
this
relation of sonship
Spirit that
of the latter
may
infer
from
But
is
the direct
affir-
mation
To
take
oxt as
Ixi
ulo{
the propo-
sition to
it
"is proved
by the
22 2
GALATIANS
fact" (Philippi, following ancient interpreters), or to take oxt in the sense of quod, "as respects the fact that" (Wies.), introduces unwar-
is
on
its face
complete and
That
in
Rom.
S'^-
'^
sonship
is
sion of the Spirit does not forbid our interpreting this passage as
mak-
ing the sonship the ground of the bestowal of the Spirit; for not only is the language of Rom. 8'^- ^^ open to interpretation as an argument
from
effect to cause, in
if
is true there, antecedence of sonship to the bestowal of the Spirit, clearly indicated in this passage, is explicable by the fact that uloOsafa (see on v.^) is used by the apostle of different
the reverse
by which men come to the full possession of the and that the context implies that it is the
of
which he
is
here speaking.
Precisely the phrase tb xveO^xa tou uloO auxou does not occur else-
where in N. T., but in Phil, i^^ Paul uses xh xveOsxa 'Irjaou Xpta-roij and in Rom. S^^ Tcveutxa Xptaxou (cf. also 2 Cor. 31^ Acts 16^ i Pet. i" Heb. gi* Rev. iqI"). Particularly instructive is Rom. S'- '", where (a)
JcveutAa
0SOU
Iv
uixTv,
(b)
xveu[JLa
XptffToO
e'xstv,
and
(c)
Xptaxbq
ev
Ci^Iv all
express the
same
fact of experience.
same experience for which Paul employs in Gal. 2^" the phrase ^f) Iv e^ol XpiaT6q and in 525 t^toixev xveujxaTt. Historically speaking, the sending of the Son and the sending of the Spirit are distinguished in early Christian thought, most markedly so in the fourth gospel (Jn. 3" 7'' 16'; but note also that the coming of the Spirit is practically identified
{cf.
the s^axeaTst^^ev
same verb
in this v.).
The two
terminologies, that of
the Christ and that of the Spirit, have also a different origin, both, indeed, having their roots largely in O. T., but being there and in later
But
in
who by
his resurrection
had become a
spirit
and the
Spirit of
God
be distinguished.
cisely to
Cf. Burton, Spirit, Soul, and Flesh, p. 189. Prewhat extent this experiential identification of the heavenly Christ and the Spirit of God has caused a numerical identification of them as personalities is difficult to say. Apparently the apostle Paul,
God
Cor. 8
etc.)
>
and
!<
less
God
not careful to distinguish the Spirit and Christ, yet never explicitly identifies them. Cf. Wood, The Spirit of God in
56 S'-
(Rom.
), is
Biblical
Literature, pp.
229-231.
The
choice of ih
its
xvsOiJ.a
is
toO ulou
equivalents
due, on
the one side to the necessity of distinguishing the fact referred to from the historic coming of the Christ (4^, which excludes rbv ulbv aixoO
IV,
23
and
XptcTTov,
and on the other to the desire to connect this experience which excludes to xvsGpLa or ih Ttveuna
xapBc'ccq
rj^xCiM,
ToO 6eou.
On
elq
xaq
Rom.
and
5= i
Cor.
spiritual
in general (i Cor. 2
and
etc.)
and
God operates.
refers (not as
The
the
cost,
same word
e. g.),
(cf. 3'),
(BMT 39).
On tjjxwv,
On
on
undoubtedly to be preferred to
V.'.
spirit.
iraTtjp. "crying, Abba, Father." The recGod as Father is the distinguishing mark of the The participle Kpd^ov agreeing with irvevixa asit is
undoubtedly
it is
also.
liyes^
See chap.
For the Spirit that dwells in us dominates our 2^0 525, and cf. Rom. S^^: eXd^ere Trvevfxa
Kpd^o}j.ev 'A/3j8a
nrariqp.
vloOea la^^ iv
The
use of Kpd^ov^
9^^
Acts
14^^
Rom.
9^7)
or of a public
announcement
(Jn.
y^^- 37)^
j^ the
Lxx
God
(Ps. 3^ 107^^),
emphasises the
Though
the
word upd^ov
itself
conveys no suggestion of
joy, it
Though
to be free
from law
freedom
law.
The
significance of such
that
of
it
makes
to
it
and attitude
law creates,
man
God
bondage and
fear
upon God as lawgiver in the spirit (Rom. 8^^) he becomes to us Father with
See detached note on
p. 391.
whom we
524
'O
xaTTQp,
GALATIANS
Greek equivalent
of the
is
a nomi-
Cf.
Rom.
85
Mk.
20"; Bl. D. 147.3. The repetition of the idea in form gives added solemnity to the expression, and doubtless
more
or less
common
Mk.
i4'
Rom.
Sief.
S'^).
On
v.
cd he.
up
through the medium of those who, knowing both Aramaic and Greek,
in reporting in
it
from that
of the
less
God
as Father
of
had
so
much
Jesus.
pp. 432-3,
434;
Dal.
WJ.
p.
192.
The attachment
speaking
circles.
of the Greek translation b icaxTjp to the Aramaic word would naturally take place on the passage of the term into Greek-
aWa
mo?-
art
no
assumed
(cf.
to
of the readers
3^),
eVre vIol of
v.^,
That the emphasis of sonship is still upon the fact of freedom from bondage to law is shown in the insertion of the negative ovKen SovXo^, and that those addressed were formerly in this bondage is impHed in ovKen.
for the bestowal of the Spirit.
and
if
for classical
through God.*'
means
and the
rela-
kXt/pow/xo?
means
Kkrjpovoixo^ Oeov.
Rom.
8^^:
he reKva^
IV,
6-7
225
the
KXrjpopofxoL
Kar e7ra77eXm?^.
The purpose
of right
of the addition
is
or desert, but
more
it.
The absence
indefinite
one through
heir.
on
deop, v.^.
The
3^^- ^^
main purpose
to convince
viz.,
was not through law but through the retention of their freedom from it that they could obtain the blessings promised to the sons of Abraham, which the judaisers had held before their eyes as a prize greatly to be desired but
obtainable only through circumcision.
tle is to
The appeal
"ye and v.^, "how turn ye back?" That he should not here employ the term viol 'AjSpadiJ,, as in 3^, but KXrjpopofiOL^ as in 329, is natural, not only because KXi^povopiOL more distinctly
retain the status they already possess.
are sons,"
meaning sons
of
KX-qpovojioi should, therefore, be taken here in the sense, heirs of God, and as such recipients
of the blessing
this blessing
has
It
is,
moreover, as present
thought
(Rom.
5^1
8^^-23),
presentation of this phase which has been received being thought of as simply the earnest and first-fruit of the full blessing (see Rom. 8^7-23 Eph. i^'*) is also true. But the Galatians already possess the promised Spirit, and the emphasis in this context is upon that which is already possessed, with no clear indication
of the matter, that
beyond
that.
26
GALATIANS
Against the supposition
as here used
xXt]pov6[xo(;
is
at
first
sight
most natural
intended to carry the thought back specifically to in v.', is the fact that xXrjpovotxoq is there applied to one
yet entered into possession of his
yJkripoyo[i.ia is
and BouXoq, precisely that position, therefore, which it is the purpose of this v. to deny; and, though the title xXTipovd^ioq carries with it the idea of future release from the status of ZouXoq, the
contention of the apostle
is
more probable,
therefore,
by
this
word he reverts
for the
moment
3"
e.,
This
is not to take vCk-qpowiioq as meaning heir of Abraham, a predicate which the apostle never applies to Christians. They are indeed called "sons of Abraham," because it is to the seed of Abraham that the promise applies, but it is God who established the 8ta6T]XT) and makes
the exaYYeXfa,
x>.T)pov6tJ.ot.
Cf.
it
and they to whom the promise is fulfilled are his on 3IS and detached note on At.ac%r]%-q, p. 496. This
%kyipov6[i.oq is
also
makes
not used in
its strict
sense of heir,
The
means
promised possession. heirs of God, and the deducinferred from an act of adoption,
tion of heirship
uloeea{a, gives
from sonship,
itself
a certain colour of support to Ramsay's view that the will inStaG-oxT] of 31^- is not a covenant but a will, and specifically a volving the adoption of a son. If the language of 31=2. were harmonious with these suggestions of the present passage, the latter would fall in
with that passage as part of an illustration consistently carried through the whole passage. But (i) the possibility of interpreting this phrase
in the
way above
Even
suggested
is
not sufficient ground for setting aside by SiaeTjxT^ he means not a will, but
a covenant.
if
by
will
son,
would only show that the apostle is now illustrating the spiritual relations which are the real subject of his thought by a different group 31^But of facts of common life from those which he employed in sonship that the (2) it is improbable that it is specifically an adoptive For, though he represents the sonapostle has in mind in e[ SI u\6q. ship of the Galatians in common with other believers as acquired by adoption, yet the fact of adoption is nowhere emphasised, and in the
actual spiritual realm that which
ries
is
by
as a consequence, the bestowal of the Spirit of God's Son, which, it is implied, those who are sons come into like relation to
with
it,
IV,
j-S
227
The conception
of
God with
of sonship,
adoption, accordingly,
8.
Again directly addressing the Galatians as in 3^, and as in former condition as one of enslavement,
them as in bondage to gods that were not and appeals to them, now that they have come into fellowship with God, not, as they threaten to do by their adoption of the Jewish cycle of feasts and fasts, to return to those WTak and beggarly rudimentary teachings under which they formerly w^ere, and expresses his fear that he has laboured over them to no purpose.
the apostle describes
in reality such,
to the
gods
or rather
now having come to know God, having become known by God, how is it that ye are
^But
to the
to
which
in bondage again?
^'^I
and
my
jjiT)
labour on you.
"But
in
Doub-
ling, so to
upon
and
in antithesis
{aWd)
to the description of
them
in
in v.^ as
heirs through
in that former
time ignorant of
to the
God who
is
in reality such,
and
bondage
The purpose of this v. appears in y.^, where he again dissuades them from returning to the state of bondage. That Paul conceived of the deities
gods that by nature are not gods.
whom
is
by
this sentence, in
which he
denies to
them
deity, 0ei6rr]<;,
28
GALATIANS
nor by the phrase einrpoiroL^ koI
oikov6ixol<; in v.
2,
existence;
since that
may
be used only by
way
;
of rhetorical personification
of the law
{cf.
on
TO,
(JToi'xda rod
of
them
is
Cor.
8^-
J019. 20
Col. 2^\
Deut.
4^^
and
special note
on
Ta
T6Te
tence.
when
the Gala-
E(B6Te(; is a perfect participle of existing state, ^^ efBoxeq meaning "not possessing knowledge." How this state of ignorance came about is not here discussed, or whether it was partial or absolute. Cf. Rom.
The omission
inite (as in
Acts 12"
as
Cor.
8*),
but, as in v.'
indefquali-
his
attributes
God, which
is
Jn.
is
i^^,
however,
God God as
of
this
indubitable,
Rom.
Rom. 8"
"zdy
Gal.
3" 4H 5"
Bou>.e6etv
less clear,
Phil. 2>'
Thes.
xal
i^: execTpei|^aTe
eSBwXwv
6etp XjOiYzi
dcXigGtvcp.
Thes. 2\
See
and Slaten,
is
'EBouXeuaaxs
Rem.
from
960), is
by
virtue of its origin; then its essential character; used thus even of
is
without origin,
Geolc;,
Pet. i^
cpuaet
fx-J)
oiHat
may
or o5at
may
be an adjecit.
but with the qualification that they are not so by nature, i. e., in realthey are not called Gsof at all, but are character-
by nature
Gram-
IV,
matically and contextually
8-9
229
is no ground of decisive choice showing that Paul could apply the term eeo{ to the gods of the Gentiles, though denying that it really belonged The comparison of Plato, to them, favours the first interpretation.
there
between
these,
but
Cor.
8',
Legg.
X 904
Cor.
A,
ol
xaxa
He was speaking of positive element of the apostle's thought was. "the gods of popular opinion," as Jowett translates Plato's phrase,
Cf.
I
On
06 with elSoxeq
and
[Aifj
with
oSat, see
BMT
negatives, though doubtless unconscious, probably reflects the feeling that o6x elUxsq expressed a fact, Tolq ^uaet [i^ ouatv Geolc; a conception,
a description of a class, but without implication of its existence or nonexistence. The few instances in which Paul uses ou with an attributive participle are quotations from the Lxx, his otherwise regular habit being to use [i-q with such participles and with adverbial participles
not involving a direct assertion (Rom.
possible exception of Col.
2i,
i^s 2^*
4"
Gal. 6^).
ou,
with the
4"
926 2
Cor. 48 12^).
9. pvu
Be yvovre^
Beov,
''But
by God."
know God, or rather to be known Their coming to know God is manifestly through
to
Cf. i Thes. i^: ttw? eTreaTp^pare 7rp6?
dhdiXoiv
language
which, as the evidence of this epistle shows, might have been addressed to the Galatians also. That jvccadepre^ as here
used can not refer simply to knowledge in a purely theoretic or intellectual sense is evident, since the apostle must have regarded
such knowledge as always, not simply
Tore)^ possessed
now
{vvi'
by God.
"hav-
ing
become objects of his favourable attention," cf. Ps. i^ Nah. 1 7 I Cor. 8^ Mt. f^, and on the thought of God receiving the Gentiles into a favour not previously enjoyed by them, see
Rom.
g^^f-
ii^o.
apostle conceived to be reahsed in respect to the Galatians in particular through his preaching the gospel to them in accord-
The pur-
pose of this added phrase, in a sense displacing the previous yvovrei, etc., is doubtless to remind the Galatians that it is
God
that they
owe
their
knowledge
of
GALATIANS
idolatry
{cf.
chap,
i^:
fierarLOecrOe airo
'X^picTTov^
and wrong
of
its
inchoative
force (see
{cf.
V.)
even in the
yet this
is
and the
come to know," or ''knowing" (result of having come to know), not "having known." See Mt. 168 22I8 261" Mk. 6'8 15^ Lk. 9" Jn. 5" Acts 238 Rom. i2i 2 Cor. 5=1 Gal. 2K By yvovxet; there is, therefore, affirmed the acquisition of that knowledge the former possession of which is
denied in
oux, efSoTsq.
e. g.,
tllhizc,
and
in
yvovTeq, as,
God
is
is,
no basis
(cf.
The absence of the article with Oedv Rom. i", yvbvzzq Tbv 6e6v. i Cor. i-^:
same
{q. v.), viz.,
emphasis
upon the
God, and
qualities of deity in
antithesis
to
the
(puaet
[li]
oYzeq Geof.
Cf. I Thes. i
Gsqi
quoted above, noting xbv 6e6v in the first mention of without the article when the word follows the mention
and with emphasis on the qualities of true deity. One might imperfectly reproduce the ejEfect in English by reading with strong emphasis on the word God. But now having come to know [a] God (not those that are no real gods).
of the idols
MdXkov U,
its
more important fact or aspect of the matter, not thereby retracting what precedes (probably not even in Wisd. 82", certainly not in Rom. 8" i Cor. 14'. ^ 2 Mac. 6"), but so transferring the emphasis to the added fact or aspect as being of superior significance as in effect to displace the preceding thought.
as in
So clearly here,
Rom.
8'^, etc.
ra aadeprj Kal
TVTOi')(a (JTOL')(la^
oh
"how
is it
wish to be in
weak and beggarly rudiments, to which ye bondage again ?" The question is rhetorical, into.
On
meaning "how
is it
possible
9
7^ 1226.
29^ et
231
freg.
Rom.
3^ 6^
Mt.
The
pres-
(Observe
is
when a
theoretical possibility
is
but in chap.
2^* it is
thing in progress.)
ort
fieraTiSecrde.
The phrase ra
v.^ calls
ra
aroL'x^eia
tov
Koafjiov; see
on that
v.,
and detached
note, p. 510.
The present
See chap.
5^- ^^-^4
Rom. i"
8^-
It
is,
of course,
now
turning that
is
specially in mind,
(rrot;)^ta
by
to
make
possible
Both were at bottom legalistic, without and destitute of dynamic the realisation of them in life. What the
8^ of the law,
it
vojjlo^^ is
apostle says in
Rom.
affirmed of
it,
not
more imperfect ethnic systems, but because of that which was common to them both, and his usual term for the displaced
system
is
not
vo^xo';^
but w'^o?
(see,
e. g.,
chap.
3^-
10-
n-
Rom.
in the
appended
relative clause
abandon
is
attested
read SouXduscv.
original
calls for
all
text
which naturally
an inceptive form.
The
the idea of a return to bondage, xiXtv avwGev BouXeuaat would have furnished no temptation to change it. HdcXiv originally meaning "back" (return to a previous position; cf.
L.
& S. and Th. s. v. and reff. there) but more commonly, in later Greek, "again" (repetition of a previous action) is often used when the repea previous state or position (Mk.
2^ 31);
but
232
GALATIANS
also (like the English "again")
when
the action
is
a return to a pre-
So in So also here, since there had been'no previous i%iaTpi(fBiv exl -ra cTOtxela, but only an elvac uxb Tci axotxeta, and the contemplated eictaTpe<pstv was not a repetition of a
chap. I" Jn. iQis
Rom.
ii''.
i-Ki^ipiqiBiy izphq
Tbv Gedv
{cf. i
Thes.
here
described
in
Yvdvreq
Gedv.
Wieseler's
statement,
"Das
icdtXtv,
friihere
Bekehrung
(extaxpoipT^) hin,
v.*
erwahn-
dem
u.
s.
(eTctaTpo(p-f)
self-contradiction only
by the expedient
axoixela,
an interpretation which would require us to read: "How turn ye again, this time to the weak and beggarly rudiments ? " The view, moreover, in support of which he resorts to this difficult expedient, viz., that Paul does not include the former heathenism of the Galatians under tcc
. .
cTotxeta
effect of xaXtv
avweev in
be in bondage,
the next clause to SouXeuetv, reading in effect, " to which ye desire to this constituting for you a second bondage." Such a
is
harsh severance of verb and adverb in two successive clauses demanded by the usage of xdtXtv and is, in fact, self-refuting.
obvious and unescapable implication of the language
. .
.
not
The
is that the cona return to a state generically the same as the idol-worship under which they formerly were. Against this it is
version to Ta
cTotxeta
is
is
is pregnant, the adverb suggesting a renewed enslavement and the present tense of the infinitive a continued state; hence in effect again to become enslaved and to continue so, or to endure a second period of enslavement. SouXeuaai would probably be inceptive. xdXtv, then, in this case expresses repetition
many
21 31, etc.),
former position. Cf. 5^. It is enforced by the nearly synonymous avco0ev "anew." It is probably an overrefinement to find in this use of the two words {cf. Wisd. ig*) anything more than emphasis, such as is
often expressed in Greek writers
by
10.
Toik.
rjfJLepa^
irapaTijpe'lade Kal
iJLrjva<;
"Ye
years."
etc., referred to
made
by the
IV,
9~io
233
unquestioned character of the influence to which the Galatians were yielding. See esp. v.^^. Compared with 5^-, in which
it
still
which indicates that the Galatians had not yet been asked to adopt the whole law, this sentence indicates that the judaisers had pursued the adroit course of presenting to them at first a part only of the requirements of the Jewish law and had begun with those things that would be least repulsive. Having secured the adoption of the festivals, and perhaps the
pending, and
fast-days, of the Jewish cycle, they
cision.
were
all
that
had adopted as yet, is not made clear, since the apostle may have mentioned these only as examples of their subjection to the law. But the silence of the letter about any statute of the law except circumcision, which they had not yet adopted, and the fasts and feasts, which they had, there being, for example, no mention in connection with the situation in
the Galatians
On
(55):
xapaTTQptCT0e,
religiously,"
cj.
Jos. Ant. 3. 91
t-J)v
xapaTTQpeiv
Tj^xlpav.
Taq
14.
264
(10"), xapaTTjpelv
twv
aa^^ciTWV
evGoc
. . .
Contra Ap.
e0vo<;
No-
where in the
38. 13,
Lxx
in
Dion Cassius,
etc.;
Ta
ex.
N. T.
<J)UA.t4affecv
Mt.
1920
Lk.
ii^s
Acts
7^'
Rom.
'H[i.dpaq
Mri^aq, strictly
for
monthly
the word
recurring events
Isa. 66").
If
used in the
(see
strict sense,
Num., chap. 29), for, though month was so occupied could be said to be observed. But it is
is
more
of the
month.
See
Num.
ioi 28";
cf. i
Chron.
234
GALATIANS
Chron. 8", ev
toIi;
aa^^i-zotq %cd ev
Tfj
toI<; [XYjalv
(il,(t[Uiiv,
eopT^ twv
ev
See Zech.
S^'.
may
So
it
referring
argument
year 54 or 55 a. d., this in the conclusion that the letter was written to
14)
observed
13.
is
The doubt of Benzinger (Encyc. whether these year-long celebrations were ever actually perhaps scarcely justified in view of i Mac. 6"'"; Jos. Ant.
234 (80, 14. 475 (16O; Bell. I. 60 (2*). But in view of the fact which the epistle clearly shows, that the Galatians had not j-^et under-
all
generally accepted
on
4' 5'), it
must be regarded
among
year.
as the sabbatical
therefore,
observance of the
year, probably
the
the
on the
of the
month
Tishri.
Barton urges
it
Talmud
it
includes
New
Year's
Day among
word
refers
to
New
cit.,
Year's Day, has already been included in xacpouq (see Barton, op.
p. 120).
But
it is
Talmud
is
in-
cludes
it in
Paul included
in itself
the xaipo(.
Formal exactness in such matters is not characteristic of Paul. It is, indeed, most likely that, as used here, [XYjvaq is included in ^[lipaq, and evtauxoui; in xatpo6(; or i^iipaq, the four terms without mutual exclusiveness covering all kinds of celebrations of days and periods observed by the Jews.
not improbable.
11.
(jiojSovjJLai
v/xa?
fxt]
"I
fear
my
i. e.,
that the
to result in nothing.
added expression
view
legalistic practices,
which
235
legalism.
Should they really come under its dominion, his labour would have been for naught. For the expression of the more hopeful feehng, between which and that of fear of the out-
5^.
object
clause.
of
Cf. It
W. LXVI
is
but anticipating the b[i.aq in the subordinate 12'" Acts 13" 5, and such N. T. examples as Mk.
Gal. I".
6,
But that this is not uniformly and the example there cited:
xbv x6Xs(xov
c(p(cFt
\x.^
e^
auTfji;
xottovxai,
Thuc.
xexoTcfaxa
is
fearing.
The
indicative
past,
then an object clause after a verb of employed because the fact spoken of is, as
is
though the result is undecided or not yet On dv.fi 227, and cf. on chap. 2^. The meaning here is evidently "without effect." The perfect cf. 3<. xexoxfaxa, referring to a past action and its existing result, is appro-
an event, already
known
to the writer.
See
BMP
it is
equivalent to a strengthened
g.
An
from law,
and
affection
for him, and expressing the wish that he were now with them and could speak to them in more per-
(4^2-20)
Dropping argument, the resumption of w^hich in w.^^-^i is probably an after-thought, the apostle turns to appeal, begging the Galatians to take his attitude towards the law, referring to
the circumstances under which he had preached the gospel to
them, and the enthusiasm and personal affection with which, made him unattractive to them, they
had received him and his message. zealous pursuit of them with that of
his
He
compares
his
own
by
its
them right now and speak in a different tone from that, by implication harsher one, which he had employed on some previous occasion when he had " told them the truth."
present with
236
^^Become as I
GALATIANS
am
am
as ye are, I
"Fe
did
me no
you on
that
my flesh,
selves?
me
as
you in an angel
^Where,
me.
you
to
the truth I
may
seek them.
good
to be
am
my
and
children, with
whom I
tone
;
travail
change
my
am
o)?
in perplexity in reference
e7a>,
you.
aBe\(f)OL,
12. Vivecrde
vjiwv.
"Become
as I
Beojiai
because I
am
as
this
sentence the
manner
of
(cf.
approach in
and
on i^O and
enigmati-
The
entreaty
itself is
and paradoxical.
Yet
its
The
apostle desires the Galatians to emancipate themselves from bondage to law, as he had done, and appeals to them to do this on the ground that he, who possessed the advantages of the law, had foregone them and put himself on the same level, in relation to law, with them. Thus while jLveade o)? iyo)
v/zet?
looks at
of law.
2i5. 16
(^cf.
similar thought
V.9)
and
but
little
el[i.i
or
(or sYevotiTjv);
actual facts, since the apostle's freedom from law was the result of a
On
zl\x.l
corresponds
IV,
best with Baii, which
parallelism,
12-13
b[ii<;
237
and better
fits
the
which
is
The inter-
pretation of Chrys.
xdcyo),
according to which
t^^xtqv is
supplied after
now
are,"
(a) that,
be supplied, and
(b) that
to
abandonment
13. oXhare
ovdiev
lie
r}hiKr)(jare'
he
on
hi
audeveiav
tt}?
"Ye
did
me no
wrong,
but ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel to you on that former occasion." ovhev ^xe r/hiKriaaTe
is
in all probabihty
an allusion
to
an assertion
of the Galatians
it
being equally
of the
which the apostle adroitly replies conceding that they did him no wrong in the first instance, and going on to remind them of their former generous and affectionate treatment of him. In v.^^ he follows
to
this up with the intimation that they are now doing him a wrong in counting him their enemy. The reference to the bodily weakness which was the occasion of his preaching to them had for its purpose in Paul's mind to remind them of their affectionate attitude towards him and to renew it. For the modern reader it has the added value of furnishing an interesting and valuable detail concerning the circumstances under which
Paul
first
preached in Galatia.
On
On
Whether ro -Kporepov referred to the former of two occasions on which he had preached the gospel to them orally, hence of two visits to Galatia, was, of course, perfectly clear to the Galatians. For the modern reader this can only be definitely decided by proving, if it can be done, from sources outside this passage whether Paul had already been in Galatia once or twice. See below on to irporepov.
print below.
OuSlv
(a)
\}
fjScx-^aaxe is
is
TQScx-naaxe
238
to one," or
(ii)
GALATIANS
"to harm," "to injure";
(b) the aorist is
understood
tc
refer to a distinctly past time, in contrast with the recent past or pres-
up
to
(c)
\i.i
is
under-
if
to u^iaq or Xptaxdv;
is
or
is
harmed him.
all
Of the
different views
probable
may
be stated as follows
Ye
is
did
in regarding
me (at that time) no injustice; it is now that you are unjust me as your enemy {cf. v.i). The occasion of the statenot in anything that the Galatians have said, but
sense of having been wronged.
(2)
ment
in this case
in the apostle's
own
grant that
I
ye did
me
no
injustice.
can
now wronging me
me
as your
enemy.
wronged.
(3) (4)
harmed.
enigmatic words.
The
now
regarding
as
felt
by Paul
an
its
The
sentence
is,
occasion in some word of theirs than to have originated with Paul him-
Had the latter been the case, he would probably have added some adverb or phrase of past time {cf. v.^); Zi is slightly adversative: Ye did me no wrong, but rather when I preached, etc., ye received me,
self.
etc.
At'
da6ivetav
Voc.
(cf.
s. v.,
oO
BLivd:[Xvoi;
St'
daOivetav xXeOaat,
quoted by
M. and M.
means (St' daOevefaq) or was a bodily weakness that gave occasion to his preaching to the Galatians, either by detaining him in Galatia longer than he had intended, or by leading him to go there contrary to his previous plan. Both here and in v." g&q^ is obviously to be taken in its physical sense, equivalent to a(o[xa; see on 3', and detached note on Jlveutxa and 2ap^, II 2, p. 493. Other senses of the word are plainly inappropriate to the context. The factors to be taken into account in considering what was the nature of the weakness are: (a) the phrase xetpaa[jLbv ufxlv sv xf) crapx,{ [xou (see below), which undoubtedly refers to the same thing here designated as da6ivetav iir]q aapxdq, tends to show that the latter was in some way offensive
sioning cause of the euiQYYe>vtad[jnQv, not the
It
was a disease
of the eyes,
obstrudh
IV,
ing his sight,
(c) 2
13
[lot
239
ax6Xo(J< xfj aapxl,
may
not im-
fact.
But
neither of
such
and doubt, wholly fail to meet the conditions. The language can refer only to some physical ailment hard to bear, and calculated to keep him humble and, in some measure, to repel those to whom he preached. Ltft. Lip, Dib. Gwt. pp. 46 j^., et al., favour epilepsy, Riickert et al. some affection of the eyes; Ramsay, reviving in part an ancient opinion, thinks it was fever with accompanying severe headache (St. Paul, pp. 94 j^., and Com. on Gal.,
For fuller list of conjectures, see Ltft. pp. 186/., Stanley, Com. on Cor., pp. 547 jf. Ramsay's view could be sustained only by showing that fever was, in Galatia, regarded as an infliction of the gods, showing the sufferers to be under their special disapprobation. But that this was in any peculiar sense true of fevers is scarcely shown
pp. 422/.).
Cf. ut supra.
v.'*, is
The
reference to
\i\Li-j
indicated
by
position or otherwise.
lepsy
many
other
left
diseases.
The
must be
undecided.
No
drawn from
(i^.
'
zu-T\-^'^zk\.Q6i<^-(iy is
used
everywhere
"
Christ.
npoTspoq
is
down.
xpdTEpov
article,
a comparative adjective in frequent use from Homer is employed as a temporal adverb from Pindar and,
with the
it is
usually
a place visited or
a battle fought) or two periods of time being brought into comparison, and the latter having been specifically mentioned, xb xp6Tepov designates the earlier one.
The two
i.
occasions or periods
d (7"); Gen. 13' 28i Mac. 3" 4" 5^ 6'. Or one may be past
Plato, Crat. 436 E; Rep. 522 A;
ii"
6. 86*;
48"; Deut.
220
i"
Jer.
See
i.
Xen. An.
4.
41*;
Neh.
Tim.
"first,"
im-
240
GALATIANS
sometimes suggests that what was xpdTspov, "formerly," no longer Isa. 41" Jn. 7" existed at the time denoted by the principal verb. In a few cases xb xp6Tepov seems also to be em2 Cor. ii' Heb. 4'.
ployed in this way: Isoc. 70 (15"'), 354c (16");
Jn.
Isa.
52*; Sus.
52;
important to notice that when xb xpdxepov designates the former of two occasions or periods, the later one is always one
6"
9.
It is
which
is
cited
called
it
is itself
former.
(which
-rb
may
xpdxepov
itself applies.
be past, present, or future), and of the event to which Yet it is obvious that the knowledge of
is
While, therevisits, it
does not exclude the possibility of them, despite the fact that we have no extant example of xpoxepov referring to the former of two occasions
neither of which
is
To
this should
be added the evidence of vv.i' and ^o (q. v.), slightly confirmed by i', that between his first visit to Galatia and the writing of the present
letter
by
letter.
There
(a) xh
xpdxepov
means simply
"formerly."
if
Against this
is
means.
(b)
Galatia was formerly, that the inclusion of the word in this sense
seemingly motiveless,
The
a reiteration of the gospel in its distinctive features, and referred to the one and only oral proclamation of the gospel as on the former
compared with the letter. Against this is the fact that on the hypothesis that this letter is considered a preaching of the gospel, and in view of the evidence of an intervening communication cited above, the present preaching was the third, which renders it
occasion, as
first
would be said
to be xh xpdxepov.
Against
Yet there
is
itself
to
in
and
i)
TP^'^
It being
known
to the Galatians
meant for them on the former of these two occasions. This takes the verb and xh xpdxepov in their usual sense, and though involving a use of xh xpdrepov with reference to the former of two events, knowledge of the second of which is supplied by the readers, not by the context
IV,
13-14
241
a usage which
probable.
without observed parallel is, on the whole, the most would in the nature of the case be difficult to discover, since they could be recognised only by evidence not furnished It remains, however, that the significance of -rb in the context. xpoxepov depends on the question of fact whether Paul had actually
is
Parallels
preached twice in Galatia before writing this letter; xb icpoTspov itself does not prove him to have done so. See further in Introd. p. xlv. That ih xpdxepov implies two visits to Galatia is the view of Alf.
Ltft. Sief. (Zahn,
two or more) Bous., and many other modern interfrom Luther down. Sief. quotes Grot, and Keil for the second Vernon Bartlet, in Expositor, Series V, of the views stated above. the beginvol. ID (1899), p. 275, explains xh icpoTspov as meaning "at ning," in the earlier part of his evangelising visit, and as suggesting
preters
that
it
initiation of his
it
his
illness,
the continuance of
He
it,
supports
this
received
and, there-
by Rom.
nor does
15").
No
it
seem
to be justified
instances of xb xpo-repov in this sense are cited, by usage. The view of McGiffert,
Apostolic Age, p. 228, that xb -jcpdTspov refers to the eastward journey from Antioch to Derbe, the later, implied, journey being the return
westward, does
YeX(t;otJLat.
less violence to
churches of
But inasmuch as the letter is addressed to all the the group, and the most eastern would on this theory have
spoken
been visited but once, it is improbable that the apostle would have of the journey up and back as involving two evangelisations
of them.
rrj
aapKi
(jlov
ovk ^ov6evi^(TaTe,
my flesh, ye
On
vfioiv
as objective
Lk.
2228.
The whole
phrase, tov
TTupauiiov
vfJLCdv
show, by
viJid<;
metonymy
{^^).
Bia rrjv
some such expression as e/xe irupd^ovra aapKos fiov. For similar metonymy, aaBevaav
for
tt}?
ireLpaafiov
is
was something in the apostle's physical consimply dition which tempted them to reject him and his message. i^eTTTvaare, not found in the Lxx and here only in N. T., is
trial;
there
242
Sief.'s
GALATIANS
attempt, following Lach. and Butt., to escape the difl&culty and e^stutGis not logically the object of e^ouOevTrjaaTe oaxe by placing a colon after aapx [lou, thus making xetpaaixov the object of otSaTs, and e^ouOevrjaaTre the beginning of a new sentence,
that xetpaa^xdv
is
225<
(=0 is
quite
unneces-
sary.
Though
"to
the similar
is
and the
:
fact that
dTzoiziuetq
compounds
meaning
of tctOsiv
{cf. dcicoiiT.
Aesch.
Bum. 303
Xdfouq.
dtir^icTuaav
euvaq dSsXfpou)
of similar
Rev.
are used in the tropical sense, make tropical meaning, "to reject," here.
aX\a
ft)?
ye received
dyyeXov deov ehe^aaSe fie, w? XpLarbv "Irjaovv, ^'but me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus." dyye\o<; is
in its general sense of ''messenger"
2'^''),
for
which he uses
diro-
(TToXo<; (2 Cor. S^^ Phil. 225), but an "angel," a superhuman being. 13I; M. and M. Voc. s. v. This is doubtless Cf. i 3" I Cor. 4^ That Paul was God's "messenger" is implied its sense here.
by the
article
The use of 6eov without the context, not the word. emphasises the qualitative character of the phrase, and brings out more strongly the dignity ascribed to Paul as God's The sentence, however, means representative. Cf. on v.^.
not that they supposed him actually to be superhuman, but that they accorded him such credence and honour as they would
Note w? Xpiarbv
'Irjaovv
and
Phm.
".
than would have been done by iXd(3ere or 7rape\d(3eTe. occur, 12 32; yet see also 2 Cor. iiS where both verbs Cf. chap, i^' Cf. Rom. 8^8 Col. o)? XpLCTTov 'Irjaovv is a chmactic addition. lis. 16. The force of <? is the same as with dyyeXov. As to
tinctly
makes such
52.
The meaning
of the sentence
different
if
Cf. (Syts^ov were taken in the not impossible sense of "messenger." ambiguous, the phrase 2 Cor. 12', where ay-^ekoq SaTavdc is similarly Yet, that in referring figuratively to a bodily aflQiction of some kind.
IV,
both cases the word
able
itself
14-15
is
243
rendered prob-
by
word.
and his usual use of the See Everling, Die paulinische Angelologie und Damonologie, pp.
Paul's evident belief in such beings
59/.
"Where, then,
is
is
thatgratu-
The question
rhetorical, implying
Lk.
that the gratulation has ceased, but without good reason. C/. 825 TTou 97 TTicT-TL? Vjuwj'; and for instances with different
:
implication, see
Rom. 3"
Cor.
i^" 12^^- ^\
o5i^
of quae cum ita sint, referring to the facts stated in vv.^^. viXMV is probably objective genitive after ixaKapiajio^, "declara-
tion of blessedness," as
is
rov avSpwirov in
Rom. 4^
it
Even
if
would be neces-
sary to understand
it
is
not of others, as
shown
clearly
by
introduced by Tap and referring to the enthusiasm of the GalaOn the use of the simple pronoun for tians in receiving Paul.
the reflexive, see Rob. p. 681, and the examples in the
diately preceding
6^ddXiJL0v<; vfxcov.
ireLpaafxbv vj^cav
immeand
Ilou
is
the reading of
S*ABCFGP
al.
g Vg.
Hier. Pelag.
Of these
Mop.
Aug. Ambrst. al. read liq instead of xou. Chr. Thdrt. Aug. Ambrst. add ^v after
TcoG
DFGK
ouv.
d
is
The
choice
e Goth. between
ouv
and
t{<;
flations of these.
Internal evidence
ing him,
Zahn
is
The
alternative
reading
probably an unintentional clerical corruption, IIO being converted into TIS, and Y omitted to make sense.
pv^avre<;
dwarop tov^ 6(j)da\iJL0v<; viio)v i^oI bear you witness that ye would, if possible, have plucked out your eyes and given them A confirmation immediately of the assertion impHed to me." ixaKapicTixh vixm but indirectly of the affirmation of their in 6
liaprvpoi
yap vfuv
otl
ei
ehwKare
px)i.
"For
244
GALATIANS
That he dwells on
this
states
it
was a disease of the eyes, though slightly favoured by d hvvarov in preference, e. g., to d ava'yKoiov is very preof the flesh
carious.
'Ttxlv is
who
receives the
testimony
ouvtzTbv
Acts
158),
is
but dative of advantage, denoting the one to borne (c/. Acts 22^ Rom. lo" Col. 4"). eJ
evidently a hypothesis contrary to fact, av
IBtixaxi
Cf.
[xot is
being omitted.
BMT
15"
1911.
On
the
mention of the eyes as the most precious members of the body, cf. Deut. 3210 Ps. 178 Zach. 2^, and on e^opuaato of the plucking out of the
eyes, see
Hdt. 8"':
e^copu^e
auTdiv
xax-^jp
Touq
6(p6aX[JLoCiq
Sta tt;v
war against his command), and other exx. cited by Wetst., ad loc, also Lxx, Judg. 16" (A; B reads Ixx.6xtco); I Sam. ii2. Jos. Anl. 6. 69 (5O uses Ixxoxtw; Mt. 5' 18^, e^atpdto. Of mention of the plucking out of one's eyes as an act of self-sacrifice no example other than the present has been pointed out.
ahiriv Ta6TiQv (viz., for going to
16.
aXrjOevooj^
v/jl7v.
"So
that I
have become your enemy by telling you the truth!" ixdp6<i must doubtless be taken not in the passive sense, "hated by" (so from Homer down; and probably in Rom. 5^0 ii^^), but in
the active sense, "hostile to," "hater of," since in N. T. (Mt.
5"^
Rom.
also,
1220, et freq.)
439^3 1121^2;
and (according to Sief. ad loc, citing Dem. Xen. An. 3. 2^; Soph. Aj. 554) in classical writers
The
Xen. Cyr.
it, but the view which the Galatians were taking or disposed to take; and the sentence is either a question asking (indignantly) whether [they hold that] he has indeed become hostile to them by telling the truth, or an exclamation expressing in ex^po^ viiSiv yeyova the
IV,
15-16
245
ing of him,
view which the apostle sadly recognises the Galatians are takand in a\r]Bevodv v^xlv the cause to which he ascribes
their hostihty.
The latter explanation is the more probable, ware does not elsewhere, in N. T. at least, introduce a question nor bear the weak sense (= ovv) which the interrogative ware vfxlu is, then, an inference interpretation requires, stated in w."- ^^, and the further premise supplied from the facts by the apostle's conscience, that he has done nothing to produce this effect except to tell them the truth. ''Since you, then, regarded me with such affection and now count me your enemy, this can only have come about through my telhng you the truth." The appropriate punctuation is, therefore, an exfor
.
clamation point.
to the Galatians.
in
That
it
w."'
15
is
a past act of becoming, describes a change from a former condition, as well as by the manifest contrariety between the enmity expressed in IxOpoq and the friendly relations described in vv."-i6. Had it been alleged that Paul had really been on that first
state the result of
visit
not their friend but their enemy in that he had taught them
things which he affirms to be true, but which his opponents called false,
which enmity they had only discovered through the subsequent teachings of the judaisers, that thought must have been expressed by some such phrase as eyevoiJL-nv kx^phq u^jlcov tw dXTjGeuetv, or supirjpLat
Nor can the (or etVO ^X^phq b]xG)y Sea xb a^vTjGeustv (or dXifjGeCiaat). truth-speaking be that of this letter, since yi-^ova implies a result already existing, and the Galatians had not yet read the
indeed, proposes to take
it
letter.
Zahn,
as
an epistolary
perfect, referring to
when the
to
letter is read.
But
aside
would be
make them
is
call
him
their
enemy, the
if
one
may
(BMT
44),
and sending.
The
natural infer-
is
referred
were those spoken of in 1% or utterances made at the same time, is an obvious suggestion in view of the somewhat minatory tone of i".
246
This, however,
if
GALATIANS
accepted, would not decide whether the utterance
in person or letter (since xpoetp-^xa^xsv in i' can, just as well as
was
and the present verse contributes whether Paul had made a second visit to Galatia only the probabiHty that there had been some communication from Paul to the Galatians between the evangelising visit and this letter. Cf.
to the question
v.'"'.
17, ^r)\o?)(Jiv
vjjid<;
ov KaXw?,
"They
In contrast
own
his opponents,
unnamed by
Heb.
13^^),
so
much
are courting
i. e.,
selfish
motive.
That
from which these opponents of Paul wish to exclude the Galathe context implies either (a) the privilege
the sense of acceptance with
of the gospel,
i, e.,
God which
those have
who
and
who
companions and converts, who maintain that the Gentiles are accepted if they have faith and without
fulfilling
effect
of such
to
sought after
rather
interpretation, since
persons as shutting others out from another group; a verb meaning to ahenate, or to cause separation from, would be
probable.
On
Bifr
198.
more Whether we
have here an irregularity of form (^7)\ovt being thought of as subjunctive) or of syntax {^TjXovre being an indicative after tz^a) is not possible to determine with certainty. 18. KdXbv de ^rjXovadai ev koXw irdvTOTe^ /cat /it) fiovov iv rm
iraptlvai
jue Trpo<^
vm<;, ''But
it is
good
to
be zealously sought
IV,
after in a
17-18
247
good thing, always, and not only when I am present Most probably a reference to his own persistent seeking after the Galatians, which he by imphcation characterises as eV KaXo) in contrast with that of the judaisers, which was ov KaXft)?, and for the continuance of which, even while absent,
with you." he
justifies
himself
by
by
v.^^.
This
^'^^,
and best
this v.
v.^^ into
must be taken
being found elsewhere, and there being no occasion for change from
active to middle form,
l^TjXoua0ac is true.
icdivxoTe
.
in
phrase, xal
[jlt]
xp6<; ufjiaq.
The
xaX(p, though in form pronoun shows that xaXbv simply a general maxim, had in the apostle's mind specific reference to the existing situation, the relations of the Galatians to Paul and his opponents. The words might therefore mean, "I do not object to others as well as myself seeking to gain your friendship, so only they do it in a good thing, in the realm of that which is for your good." It \).(>vqv u^aq awkis an objection to this interpretation that wardly expresses the idea "by others as well as myself," and that such
definite personal
. .
tJ--Q
a disclaimer of desire on the apostle's part to monopolise the interest and affection of the Galatians does not lead naturally to v.''. The
words
may
also
t;TQ>.oua6at.
'Tt
be explained by taking Paul as the implied subject of to be sought I myself could desire is a fine thing
after, in
vs^hen I
a good thing
always, when
as well as
am
present."
proach of the Galatians for their fickleness in changing their attitude towards him, now that he is no longer with them. The change in implied subject of ?;T]XoDaOat without indication that the reference
is
now
an objection to this interpretation, though not a decisive one; the apostle may have preferred to leave the reference somewhat veiled. But it is difiicult on this interpretation to account
to the apostle himself
is
for ev xaXo),
for
if
the apostle
is
think-
pretation
first
J^tjXouv of
justifies.
248
19. reKva
iv vfiiv.
jjlov,
GALATIANS
ou? irakiv wbivoi
children with
fJi')(pL<;
o^
jjLopcfxjody
Xpto-Jo?
"oh,
my
whom
I travail
again in birth
of
pangs
tion
till
Language
deep
affec-
and emotion,
his right to continue his zealous efforts to hold the affection of his readers,
and probably
The
i.
and extremely
them
as those
whom
he has already begotten or borne; 01)9 them as again in the womb, needing a
must continue
till
Christ be formed in
lives in
them,
i. e.,
until
it
them
(220).
Were
it
at the beginning of
v."", v.^'
would naturally
be tasen as the beginning of a sentence and v.^o as its completion. The occurrcrnce of M, however, necessitates either connecting v." with v.^o, V.18, as in WH., or assuming an anacoluthon at the beginning of
as in
RV.
it
The
recarrence in
v.^" of
used also in
v. ^^ implies
makes
broken
improbable that
begins a
of
new
line of thought,
is
which
is
off at v.".
ably correct
WH.
therefore
more prob-
The
ears, is
unambiguously
[xopcptoGfi is
The
precise
pressed in
less certain.
In
themselves the words not unnaturally suggest a reversal of the preceding figure, those who were just spoken of as babes in the womb, now
being pictured as pregnant mothers, awaiting the
the Christ begotten in them.
uncharacteristic of the apostle.
of the believer to the law
full
development of
figure
is
not
he makes the deceased one remarry, sacrificing illustration to the thing In i Thes. 2^ if, as is probable, the true text is viQxtot, illustrated. the apostle in the same sentence calls himself a child, and a mother,
and a nurse, each term expressing a part of his thought, and in v." compares himself to a father. Nor is it a serious objection to this view of the present passage that the apostle has not elsewhere employed the It would be easy to figure of Christ being begotten in the believers.
give examples of figures of speech employed
by him but
once, as,
e. g.,
IV,
19
mother
249
in birth pangs.
of equally
Nor does he
employment
from the same general sphere. See Rom. y\ where he speaks of the and as bringing forth fruit (children) to God, and i Cor. 41^ and Phm. ">, where he speaks of himself as the beThe word piop^wO^ (occurring nowhere getting father of his converts. else in Lxx or N. T.) is more consonant with this view than with any
believer as married to Christ
other.
Cf.
synonyms xXdaaw
i
in Jer.
i^,
lupb
tou
[xe
xXdaai as ev
Rom. 9"
Tim.
is
21'.
objection
that
not in
itself strikingly
appropriate for the spiritual fact to which the apostle evidently refers, and that when elsewhere Paul speaks of Christ in the believer (chap. 2*0
Col.
I"
etfreq.) the
Yet over against this objection is to be set the fact that this passage contains, what all the others lack, the word [xopcpwOfj, suggesting if not requiring the view that here the thought of the apostle takes on a
different
it
has elsewhere,
(b) It is
perhaps
not impossible that without reversal of figure the apostle thinks of his birth pangs as continuing till the child in the womb takes on the form of the begetting father, who is now thought of as being not Paul but
Christ.
ev
The
choice of
[Ji.op9w0'n
e. g.,
h^zlz
h\i.ot.ui\iJxit.
XptJTOu
[xoptptoGfiTe
might in
(c)
this case
be due to the
suggested
formula Xpta^bq
tijStvo)
ev
u^xlv
or
the like,
The
figure
by
be dropped altogether, tJ.lxP"^ ^ [xop^oiGfj referring figuratively, of course, but without specific thought of the birth process, to that spiritual process, the full achievement of which is elsewhere ex-
may
pressed
by Xpcaxbq
ev uixtv
and
is
like phrases.
no perfectly decisive evidence for either which the figure stands The reactionary step which is substantially the same in any case. the Galatians are in danger of taking, forces upon the apostle the pain-
The
by which he
first
world of faith in Christ, and his pain, he declares, must continue they have really entered into vital fellowship with Christ.
there
Against the strong external evidence for xlxva, ^*BD*FG Eus., is no clearly pre-Syrian witness for Tsxvta except Clem. Alex.;
For i^^ACDb et cKLP al. pier, are predominantly Syrian. But combined with Clem, they probably mark the reading as of Alexandrian origin. The adoption of Tsxvt'a by WH. txt. (mg. xexva) is a departure from
their usual practice
sufficient
{cf.
WH.
II p. 342), for
which
there seems
no
250
GALATIANS
aWd^aL
T7)V
"But
I could wish to be
my
tone; because I
his
am
Moved by
in
deep sense
his strong
unhappy
by
and
come might be
the
told
moment
them the
quently said
had used when he and so gave occasion for its being subsethat he had become their enemy (v.^), and ex-
now
{aprC) with
them and
of strong
Cor. 7^ and
which he there
On
^]6eXov, cf.
BMr 33;
Rob. 885/.
The wish
is
evidently regarded
language,
by the more sharply defined reference to the present moment than vuv means "at this very moment." The clause oxt ev u|xlv suggests for dtXXci^at x'fjv 9(i)viqv ^jlou the meaning "to change my tone according to the situation." But the absence of a limiting phrase such as v-ax' dvaYxalov is against this and necessitates
^pxc with
.
.
.
understanding
it
to
my
tone,"
i.
e.,
to adopt a dif-
ferent one; yet certainly not different from the immediately preceding
The
manner
cf.
of speech
now
Though
when
them
as
having been
Iv
xaXw
(v.
i),
he yet
now speak in a different tone, (^xopouixai is middle and passive forms are thus used with nearly the same meaning as the active in Dem. 830', etc.; Sir. 18' Lk. 24^ Jn. 13" Acts 25'" 2 Cor, 4'). ev u^JLlv means "in respect to you," as in 2 Cor. y^'.
IV,
lo.
20
251
to
Abraham
it
occurs
an after-thought, that he might make his thought clearer and more persuasive by an allegorical interpretation of the story of Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, the one born in course of nature only, the other The two mothers he interprets in fulfilment of divine promise. as representing the two covenants, that of law and that of
promise, and the two communities, that of the lineal descen-
who walked in
the footsteps
In the antagonism between the two sons, or their descendants, he finds a parallel to the persecution to which the Gentile Christians have been subjected at the hands of the
Jewish Christians, and
are rejected of God.
cites scripture to
The argument
is
Would
you
of
Abraham?
Be
to
so,
have been exhorting you to be, sons but observe that of the Abrahamic family
and the
free.
We,
brethren,
whose relation
"^^Tell
Abraham
is spiritual,
to be
servant,
sons, one by the maid and one by the freeruooman. "^^But the son of the maid servant was born according to the flesh; the son of the freewoman ^Which things are allegorical utterances. For through promise.
^"^For it is
these
women
is
bondage, which is
Hagar
the
Mount Sinai
is.
Jerusa^^But
writ-
For she
Jerusalem above
is free,
which
our mother.
"^"^For it is
thou barren
woman
and
^^And
was born
252
according
to the flesh
GALATIANS
persecuted
him
For
that
to
now.
Cast out
the
maid
servant
and her
shall
brethren,
we are
children, not of a
maid
/xot, ol vtto
and
is
It
The address
OeXovre; elvav
impHes, as
is
have not adopted, but are on the point of adopting, the legalistic principle and practices. The Galatians are Cf. i 3^ 411. 17.
not
VTTO vo/JLOV
but
virb voixov
BeXovTe^ elvai.
3^2, v.'',
and in Rom. 6^"- ^^; the word p6fj,o<; thus bearing the same sense which it has constantly in this and the preceding chapter, divine law viewed by
itself as
a legahstic system.
See note on
3^^
on N0V09,
probably
2.
c.
On
refers, as is indicated
by
422, etc.,
to the 0. T. scrip-
3),
tained that legalistic system which they were urged to accept. 22. yeypaiTTaL yap otl 'A/5paa/x dvo ulou? ea'^ev, eva e/c
r^?
7rat5t(7/C77?
Kal eva
e/c
rrjs
iXevdepas'
sons, one
came among the Greeks a term for a female slave (see L. & S.) and is frequently so used in the Lxx. fXv eK rrjs TraibtaKr^s Kara adpKa yeyevvrjTai, 6 23. aXX be eK Trjs iXevdepas di eVaTTeXms. "But the son of the maid servant was born according to the flesh; the son of the freewoman through promise." Kara adpKa^ "by natural generation," in the ordinary course of nature
{cf.
Rom.
i^ 9^
and
IV,
21-24
53
detached note on
antithetical, not by and 5t' though Isaac was^ begotmutual exclusion, but in the fact that, 5t' cTraTTeXtas, and ten and born Kara crdpKa, his birth was also because of this, while the birth of Ishmael was was significant
On
chap.
cf.
the eTrayyeXla here referred to, see The perfect yeyevvrjTai is used 2,'\
is thinkin preference to the aorist iyevridr), because the writer historical fact but of the existing result ing not simply of the
and
especially
WH. bracket \ih, omitted by B f Vg. Tert. Hil. Hier. Yet the group concurrent omission of such a word by one Grk. ms. and a small Latin authorities seems to raise no serious question of its belonging of
to the text.
iTza-cre'khQ
Between
Si'
iiza-ryBkiaq
al.
(SAC
(BDFGKLP
pier. Or.) it is
confidence.
Both readings are supported by good pre-Syrian groups. But the probability that Paul would have opposed to xaxd: acipxa a
qualitative
article in referring to St' exa-j-ysXiac; rather than used the in favour a promise not previously mentioned seems to turn the scale
Si'
of
e%.
" 24. aTLvd ecFTiv aXkriyopoviieva' Which things are allegoriThe present tense of the participle, the meanutterances." cal
by usage, and the facts respecting make the above the only tenable
the participle being interpreted as an adjective BA/T 432. participle used substantively in the predicate. assertion pertains not to the original sense of the passage, The
it,
proper interpretation of the words, but to the character of the utterances as they stand in the scripture. Substantially the ypa(j)r} same thought might have been expressed by ariva rj
aXkrjycpel in the
sense,
allegorically," the scripture being conceived of apart
now
speaking.
254
The verb
dcXk-qyopiio,
GALATIANS
a late Greek word not found in the Lxx, and
first
in
Strabo
i.
2',
though
iXkrifopio:
"to speak in riddles" {cf. Jos. Ant. Proem. 24 (4), where and aXkrifopioi occur together), and ux6vota of an underlying figurative or allegorical meaning: Xen. Symp. 3"; Plato. Rep. 378 D; cf. Philo, Vita contempl. 28 (3). The meanings of iXkri-xogiui
abk'zo\iai
are as follows:
1.
To
another
words taken
literally
the
object of the
verb or subject in the passive being the words uttered: Philo, Leg. alleg. II 5 (2): aTJkdi xai TaOra cpucrtxtoq dcXXiQYOpec. Mut. nom. 67 (9); Jos. Ant. Proem. 24 (4); Clem. Alex. Paed. I 45 (chap, vi); Porphyr. Anir. Nymph. 4. In the passive, to be spoken allegorically: Porphyr.
Vila Pythag. 12; Origen, Cels. 4=8: 'HatoSq)
xepl T^q Yuvatx.b<; dcXXigYopetTat.
\x.Yr\\x.la
efprjixeva Iv [xuOou
axTjixaTt
TTJq Ev zolq
2.
To
iXXTjyopoutievotq IHaq dxsXncov. Execrat. 159 (7) speak of allegorically, the object being not the words uttered
is
underlying
i.
Plut. Es.
jxev
S-f)
cam. Orat.
xepou^^t^
^*.
In the passive, Philo, Cherub. 25 (8): tA Tp6xov ouTox; dXX-r) Yopelxat. Clem. Paed.
KoXkaxdc,
^^^'
?va
47
(chap,
vi).
vi):
ouTuq
dXXTjYopelTat 6 X6yo<;.
call (a
Paed.
46
(chap.
With
double object, to
:
43 (chap, vi) adpxa fjpLlv ih icvEutxa ih aYtov sive, Clem. Paed. II 62 (chap, viii): ol
. .
In the pas.
. .
dtxoaxoXot
x6Se<;
To
interpret allegorically,
i.
e.,
to
spiritual
meaning
Origen,
Philo,
dXXiQYopfiq
"xotslv
v.a\
epYa auiroO."
201".
aXk-q-^opouYzaq auT-^v.
Cels.
i^*;
4";
For dXk-qyopU
in the sense
"an
allegory,"
"a thing
to be understood
The second of these meanings of the verb is excluded for the present passage by the fact that axtva evidently refers either to the persons and events just named or to the statements concerning them, not to their
spiritual significates,
this
then,
we take into consideration the two remaining and for this passage only possible significations and the possible usages of the present
participle in
tations of eaTiv aXX., those that are too improbable to deserve con-
IV,
sideration being ignored:
24
255
may
be, so far as
usage
is
excluded
from scripture, of which it might be said that they were spoken allebut not that they are wont to be so spoken; or (b) "are wont
to be interpreted allegorically"; but this
is
meaning the following clause introduced by y&p must be understood as containing the interpretation thus referred to; but this interpretation was certainly not the current Jewish one, and it is very improbable that a current Christian interpretation had yet sprung up, or, even if it had, that it would be such as that which follows; this is adapted to express and sustain Paul's own conception of things, and must be ascribed to him rather than supposed to be borrowed by him
for with this
The tempting
not suscf.
by Greek usage, which would have required Origen, Lam. Jer. 1^. Such cases as Acts 15" 21' 2
dXkriyopri-zicz;
Pet.
may
etc.,
same effect is the interpretation of Mey. Sief., "which things have an allegorical sense"; which is sustained neither by any recognised force of the participle nor by specific instances of such a meaning of the passive of this verb.
not propriety, but impending futurity.
the
(2) ea-ctv dtXXT]Yopou;xva
To
may
indicative,
dcXXiQYopsl,
YP<^<P'i
made
Xifti;
by the ever-present
Rom.
4':
t(
yd:?
f)
ypacpT?)
Rom.
10';
V." below,
and
in the passive,
Heb.
XlysTat xauTa.
But
The
may
(BMT
127;
Mt.
220, etc.).
But the
way when
is
the utterance
thought of as past at
123. 432
(a);
all.
(4) It
may
cf.
be a
utterances"
(BUT
MGNTG.
p.
127);
Jn.
5"
^aXXo^va "the deposits"; Rom. 10" i Cor. 15" i Thes. 2" Thes. i Gal. 5% xeptxepLvdtievoq, "one who receives circumEph.
4^8
Rom. n^s
Thes.
ji",
6 pu6ixevog,
.
"the deliverer";
.
yevigxat.
It is
256
just this
GALATIANS
true that N. T. furnishes no example of a present participle applied in way to utterances of scripture, such utterances, when desig-
nated by a participle used substantively, being always elsewhere expressed by a perfect participle (xh elpTjixivov: Lk. 2^* Acts 2^* 13" Rom. 4I8; Tb YSYpa^piivov: Acts 13" 241* 2 Cor. 4" Gal. 3'" Rev. i') or by an aorist participle (xb ^yjOIv: Mt. i" and ten other passages in
Mt.).
Yet
in
and
of such
expressions as
sc. 6v Ypa<?7i),
i]
ypa^T) 'kiyei
?)
(Rom.
4', etc.),
and
Ypcc?-?)
i}
Xlyouaa
(Jas. 2"),
dXXiQYopou^sva
with
substantive
force,
ings," in Philo, Vita contempl. 29 (3 b) cited above, such a use here is not improbable, and, though grammatically more difficult than interpretation (i), must because of the contextual difficulties of the former
be preferred to
it.
but gram-
The
it
apostle
is
the Greek interpreters. See Zahn, ad loc. then speaking not of what the passage meant as uttered
by the
but of the meaning conveyed by the passage as with Philo before him, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews and Origen after him, he conceived of the
original writer,
stands.
In
common
own
and
in
Romans
Abraham
apparent that in this passage at least he ascribes to the scripture as now speaking a meaning distinct from that which it bore as originally written, regarding the latter as repreit is
as a historical character,
The
only question can be whether in this case he regarded the spiritual truth as really conveyed and vouched for by scripture, or only for the
purposes of appeal to the Galatians adopted a current method of using scripture. The unusualness of this method of argument on his part
perhaps favours the latter view; but the absence of anything in the {e. g., xar' avGpwxov Xlyo)) to indicate that he
speaking otherwise than in accordance with his
i
own
convictions,
Cor. 9*
io<,
Against the strong evidence that Paul ascribed historicity to the O. T. narratives, includword aAAij-yopov/xej/a can not be cited as valid evidence to the
contrary.
For though the word may often be used when the statements
literally
understood
is not involved in the meaning of the word. Origen. Cels. 4", where Origen, going beyond Paul and saying that the statements as originally uttered were allegorically spoken ()jA.A)Y6p7jTai), yet implies also their historicity
Philo, also,
though he often
meaning
as absurd
and
yet in other instances clearly accepts as historically true in their literal sense passages which he also interprets allegorically. {Mut. notn. 81 [12]). Cf. Bous.
I
[Somn.
102
[17]),
"Er
IV,
24
257
It is doubtful whether any stress can be laid on the fact that Paul uses the compound relative dtxiya rather than the simple a. The
generic force of
ccTcva,
"which as other
ad
loc.) is
like
things"
(cf.
Th.
s.
v.
2;
MGNTG. p. 91 /.;
Ell.
veying the thought that the predicate aXkr^-^ogod^ya applies not simply to the passage or events just mentioned, but to others of Hke character in O. T.
to indicate
both a preference
an ignoring
of the distinction
form in the nom. plur. and between these and the shorter forms.
f^ 9^ 11* i6<'
^
Thus
oTxtvsq occurs in
Rom.
i^s. s* 2^^
Cor.
31^ 2
Cor. S'"
22. is
Rom.
of
czY;
Tim.
is
6% with no instance
2"^'^;
occurs, besides the present passage, in Gal. 51' Phil. 3' Col. 2";
Col.
in
2^
in
accus.; in Col.
accus.,
uncertain;
If,
then,
" Tit.
21,
it will
be im-
possible to discover
any
to the antecedent that will account for the use of axiva in one
group
of suc-
and a
uses a
tjtk;
in the other.
This
is
23,
where
and the
latter axtva.
There
is
even
less
in vv."-
'
any
force different
from that
than in the case of artva here; for not only is it difficult to discover any of the logical relations sometimes intimated by the use of the
compound
relative,
T^xcq
for the
it
here in
\
fiCa jiev cltto
opovs ^lpci,
"For
women
Mount
Sinai."
With
yy
22.
23^ ^\ g_^
to point out
and events referred to in what they mean when they are taken
as allegorical utterances.
From
this point of
view elaLV
is
to
Mt.
1338
Mk.
142*;
Philo, Cherub.
97
23 (7):
ylvercHOvvro
e^WTaTco {a^aCpa).
On
hadrfKai^
only
is
Of the two covenants here referred to, StJ'a identifying it named, the phrase fJ^ia
.
.
17
258
GALATIANS
shown by Heb.
lo^
left
/xt'a
^*
The erepa
unnamed,
imphed
is
in 5uo dLadrj-
KaL
and
is
but
is
evidently
that
of
which faith
3^^^^ as
is
referred to in
is
not there
designated as a covenant.
els
age,"
e.,
The
par-
plied to
slave
ApHagar the phrase designates her as one who, being a woman, bears children who share her status of slavery.
123, 420).
and timeless
(BMr
As applied to the Sinai covenant it refers to the fact that they who came under this covenant were in the position of slaves as being in bondage to the law. Cf. 4^ The form of the expression, yevpcbaa^ etc., is, of course, determined by the fact Hterally taken; there
is
assumed in O. T. that
man's slaves
See Gen.
The
The Genesis
which a slave concubine bore to her master is not definitely defined. story of Hagar and Ishmael indicates that the slave mother remained a slave at least in cases in which she had been a slave before
becoming her master's concubine, and that her son was not ipso facto the heir of his father (Gen. 211), but suggests that the status of the son was at the option of the father.
TJTLS
edTLv
is
Hagar."
above.
The
clause
is
best
taken as identifying.
On
and on that
of eVrtV^ see
two women named above, Hagar represents in the allegory the covenant that proceeded from Sinai. 25. TO de^Ayap ^iva opos iarlv eV rrj 'Apa^ia^ ''Now Hagar is
states that of the
It is not the woman Hagar (rj "Ayap) made, either as a historical person or as a character in the narrative to which he is giving an allegorical interpretation, but either the word, in which case iarlv
Mount
of
Sinai in Arabia."
whom
the statement
is
259
opos (note the neuter article;
cf.
W. XVIII
3;
Rob. 766),
or,
by mountain
and
Stz^a, the
WH.
vol.
II,
Rom.
Sinai
2282-
329).
The
Mount
Hagar
was sometimes,
by
is
implication, called
or, as is
of a scribe
to confirm the
has from the historical point of view no real value, of course, as proving a relation between Hagar and the Mount Sinai covenant;
still
less as
God
rests
on
the spiritual followers of Abraham's faith rather than on his physical descendants.
allegorical
illustrates.
is
method
If it is
of interpretation
probably so in any
case.
is consonant with the which the whole paragraph it is by that fact a parenthesis, and The use of 5e (rather than yap) is
it is felt
to be
of the
main argu-
ment.
of 5e
Cf.
6,
and 7 dp
The
(a)
meaning which
first
clause attested
by ancient
g Vg.
see
est.
ov,
evidence
xb yap Stva opoq
Icj-rfv:
J<CFG
tr.
zhU)
Arm. Aeth.
Zahn,
p.
and Gr.
Sah. reads:
adds
Stvd: opoq
6v ev
x'n
mountain, being in Arabia." But since be no occasion to insert ov, the probability is that "Ayocp has fallen out, and that the testimony of S is really in favour of the presence of
"Ayap
al.
in the text,
(b)
xb
opo<;
laxt'v:
KLP
33**
Arm. Chrys. Theod. Mops. Thdrt. Thphyl. (c) xb ydtp "Ayap opoq iaziv: d. (d) xb Se "Ayap Stvct 3poq iaxb: ABD 31, 442, 436, 40 lect. Syr. (hard. mg.). Boh.: "Ayap S^ Iltvd: etc., some mss. omitting oi.
pier.
26o
GALATIANS
Of these readings both the character
of the witnesses to (b)
it is
and
is
its
derivative; (c)
too
be considered.
Modern
tween
Sief.
(a)
(d).
and
(d),
Hort, Ws.
If the
The
latter seems,
i<
presence of ov in
in effect
distinctly
ability
is
is
omission of
AEA,
in the
form or meaning
of (a) to
make
its
The
absence of definite
Hagar and
Sinai, either as
names
an interpolation at
adopted reading
this point.
'Apa^fcjc
(a)) suggested that the words Stvd Zgoq eaxlv ev t^ were a marginal gloss afterwards introduced into the text; and Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus, I. i, p. 171, et al., conjecture
'Apa^fqc is an interpolation. Cf. Clemen, Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Briefe, pp. 118/. Either of these conjectural emendations would remove the obscurity
. .
feel
own
imagi-
able, and, in
Of the two suggestions that of Holsten is the simpler and more probview of the process bv which the Pauline epistles were
collected
in itself improbable.
See notes on
2>^^^
and 3".
Precisely
(if
what the
fact
was
of
he wrote the sentence) we do not with certainty know. It may have been that he was aware that the Arabians or certain tribes of them were called sons of Hagar (D"'1Jn, 'AYYaprjvof, Ps. 83 7; aiNnjn, 'Ayapigvof,
I
Chron. $^\
cf.
Ltft.
ad loc).
b^-gar,
in
mind that
there
is
an Arabic word,
which
may
be reproduced in Hebrew as
ijn and signifies "cliff, rock"; it is possible that the word may have been applied by the Arabs to that particular mountain which in Paul's day was regarded as the scene of the giving of the law. To this it is
of the
mountain was on
"ijn,
this
theory
while
that
of
is
the
woman was
for
scientific
exactness
in such a
matter
In the
or anything
IV,
closely resembling
it,
25
to a
26i
mountain
also
was applied
known as Stvi,
all
such suggestions must remain conjectures only. See Ltft,, detached note, pp. 197^. This fact has influenced Ltft. Wies. Zahn, et al., to
^v
adopt the otherwise inferiorly attested reading xb Ycip Scvd: 8po<; IgtIv Ltft. translates: ifi 'Apa^lq:, interpreting it, however, variously.
"For
Sinai
is
a mountain in Arabia,"
riTnq eaxlv
i.
e.,
in the land of
bondsmen Zahn
themselves descended from Hagar, and finds in this statement a confirmation not of
interprets
"Ayap, but of
elq SouXefav
i.
yevvdaa.
"For Mount
it
Sinai is in Arabia,"
is
e.,
which
from which
those to
whom it is given.
by them; but the
Ell.
and
Sief.
Mount
Sinai,
in
applied to Sinai.
instead of
6ax{v,
opo<;),
Jerusalem that
eurXv
now
is."
tjtis
"kyap
^kpa^ia.
Yet the
(=
jiia dLadrJKT])^
as SouXeuet
ydp
indicates.
"The Jerusalem that now is" is manifestly used by metonymy for that Judaism of which Jerusalem was the centre.
The
military use of auvaxotxetv, "to stand in the
Thus
Ltft.,
who
repre-
The The
old covenant.
earthly Jerusalem.
262
ting things into
of the
GALATIANS
two columns, one containing all that falls on the side bond and the other all that belongs to the free, but is pointing
out the equivalents of the several elements of the narrative allegorically treated. If, then, it is necessary to take the word in the precise
sense suggested
by Polybius, the
gram
2,
3, 4,
at the
head of the several columns representing the four elements of the narrative on which the apostle puts an allegorical interpretation, and the items below each of these representing the things for which they stand.
(I)
(2) (3)
(4)
Hagar,
the
bond
Ishmael,
born after
Sarah,
the
freewo-
woman,
age.
(a)
bearing
man
(bearing free
to promise.
bondage.
children).
{a)
ih)
that
The
children of Jeru-
Jerusalem
above.
that
is
The
children of Jeru-
salem in bondage
to legalism.
salem
free.
above,
ac-
cording to promise,
Yet it is doubtful whether our interpretation should be so strictly governed by the Polybius passage (which is itself not perfectly clear, and to which no parallel has been cited). The use of the verb in
Musonius
(c/.
L.
& S.)
in
in Aristotle
(Mdaph.
i. 5,
6 (986a"),
members
left," suggests
"odd and even," "right and meant simply "is correlative to," "in
its allegorical
significance
is
the
corresponding term."
require ivxtaxotxet
is
The statement
in
had
one of which stood the terms of the narrative itself and in the other antithetically term for term their spiritual significates, he would probably have used ivTiarotxei. But the idea
in
8ov\evL yap tiera rcov reKvo^v avrrjs' "for she is in bondage with her children": justification of the parallelism just
Hagar and Jerusalem. As Hagar, a slave, bore children that by that birth passed into slavery, so the
affirmed between
Jerusalem that
legalistic
now is and her children, viz., all the adherents Judaism which has its centre in Jersualem, are
of
in
bondage to law.
IV,
25-26
263
26.
r}
"But
the Jerusalem
above
is
free."
and the Jerusalem that is to be, or and the Jerusalem above, the apostle mingles the two forms. The same point of view from which
the Jerusalem that
is,
now
the seed of
Abraham
are,
makes the new Jerusalem not the Jevvish capital, but the community of believers in Jesus the Christ, and the conception of that community as destined soon to take up its abode in heaven (i Thes. 4^^-) and as already hving the heavenly hfe {cj. Phil. 32^^- Col. 3^-3) converts the Jerusalem that is to be, which would
be the
strict antithesis to the
Jerusalem that
now
is,
into the
Heb.
12^^*^-
Mount
and symbol
as representing the
community
of believers
v.^^),
probably
The freedom
is
referred to
5^,
spoken of
in 2^
and
The conception
of a restored
40^.
and beautiful Jerusalem appears even Zech., chap. 2 Hag. 2'', and in other
361'^ Tob. 13'''^ 14^ Ps. Sol. 17". In
of the old house
Sir.
Enoch
go^s-
by a new one
is
pre-
dicted
(cf.
Hag.
d. Jtcd.\ p. 273;
Charles, The
This conception of a
first in
apparently found
4 Ezr. 7"
13^8;
Apoc. Bar.
32^,
nished the apostle with the basis of his conception here expressed.
rjTis
eaTlv
fxrJTrjp r}iiaiV
is
"which
is
our mother."
allegory
of
of
expression
rjixuiv
derived from
the
Sarah;
literally
we
are
members.
The
addition of TrdvTOiv
On
traced to Polyc. Phil, chap.- 3, or to the influence of the force of tjt is see note on ar iva (v.^'').
^
Rom.
4^^
264
27. TeTPctTrrat yh.p
prj^ov Kal ^orjGov^
97
GALATIANS
"
EvcfypdvdrjTL,
arelpa
rj
ov TiKTovaa-
woXka ra reKva Trjs ipi]p,ov fxaXXov rj rrjs ixovarjs rbv avbpa'* "For it is written Rejoice thou barren woman that bearest not, break forth and shout, thou that travailest not. For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband." The quotaotl
tion
is from Isa. 54^, and follows exactly the text of the Lxx (BAQ), which neglects to translate the Hil, "rejoicing,"
ovk wbCvovcra'
52^2;
to the ideal Zion, bidding her rejoice in the return of the exiles,
Yahweh
leading
{cf.
527-12).
is
Jerusalem
is
woman
and the comparison signifies that her the return from exile was to exceed that which
exile;
she had enjoyed before the captivity. There may possibly underlie the words of the prophet a reference to Sarah and Hagar as suggesting the symbolism of the passage {cf. 512), but
there
ing
this.
The
of the barren
woman
as corre-
sponding to Sarah,
who
till
late in life
woman
is
of the 0. T. passage as justifying or illustrating his conception of a new redeemed Jerusalem whose glory is to surpass
all the more appropriate for involved the same figure of Jerusalem as
a mother, which he had himself just employed, unless, indeed, v.26 is itself suggested by the passage which was about to be
quoted. There is a possible further basis for the apostle's use of the passage in the fact that its context expresses the thought
that
God
is
51I-8, esp. v. 7). But whether mind is not indicated. The ydp doubtless confirmatory, and connects the whole statement
his
law
{cf.
with
r)}JL(ov.
"And
ye, brethren,
265
this sentence the apostle takes
up
his allegorical
development
Having in vv.^^. 23 developed it with reference to the two women, which he has made to represent the two communities, and incidentally enforced his thought by a quotation from the prophets, he now makes use of the sons, Isaac and Ishmael, and more pointedly applies his allegory to his readers. Note the address u/xets 5e, ade\(})OL. As Isaac was born in fulfilment of a promise, not in
of the O. T.
narrative at a
new
point.
whose standing with God rests made to Abraham, which has already been interpreted as applying to all who have
also are children of promise,
faith (3 7'
1).
is
an addi-
As
and
of
in 4^, evidence is
T?i[xet<;
. .
b^izlq
iaxi
eafxlv.
The former
is
attested
by
the group
BDG,
supported by S3, 424** Sah., the latter by SAC with the concurrence LP f Boh. and Cyr. and the great body of the Syrian authorities.
u^ielq
. . .
eaxe,
the
change of
form
more
easily explicable as
b[ilq is
due to
unobjectionable on
Paul;
cf.
423-29.
manner
&
S.
s.
v.
B. Ill 3) and in N. T.
Eph.
is
4^*
Pet.
ii
4 Heb. 8'.
The
characteristic)
is emphatic. The term is qualitative, but the reference undoubtedly to the promise already repeatedly referred to in the
IS- *! ). Whose children they are, whether sons of God Abraham is not emphasised; but the context as a whole the latter. To take xixva as meaning children of the Jerusalem
epistle (31s-
or sons of
implies
above
is
(Sief.) is to insist
upon a
and
practically excluded
by the phrase
29.
oKX
wcTTvep
Tore
ebCo^Ke
tov
Kara wuevfia,
according to
to the Spirit,
"But as then he that was born the flesh persecuted him that was born according so also now." The persecution which the Gentile
ovroos Kal vvv.
266
Christians
GALATIANS
had
suffered at the
hands
of the descendants of
Abraham according
that this fact had
Isaac. In speaking of the persecution of those who are according to the Spirit the apostle probably has in mind chiefly the persistent efforts of the judaisers to induce the Galatians to take on the burden of the law. Cf. y}^ i^ 510, cf. also 2,\ though
as
secutions.
shown there that passage does not necessarily refer to perThat persecutions of a more violent nature and at the hands of Jews {cf. i Thes. 2^^' i^) are also in mind is possible
The
and the traditions that had gathered about it, but the apostle may also have had in mind the mutual hostility of the nations supposed to have descended from the two brothers.
The
adversative dXXd introduces a fact which
6
is
on the face of
is,
it
in
xara adpxa
of course, in
Cf.
on
v.".
who
are descendants of
The Lxx
reads xac^ovra
eauTi^<;,
On
an original Hebrew different from our present Hebrew, and on the the incident, see Ltft. ad loc. The Talmud (Beresch. Rabb. 531^) says: "Dixit Ismael Isaaco: Eamus et videamus portionem nostram in agro; et tulit Ismael arcum et sagittas, et jacurabbinic expansion of
latus est
ad
loc.)
(3") or
rally
tulit, ac si luderet." (Quoted by Wies. we should naturally expect xkt' iTCayysXfav IC ixayyeXiaq (v.^'). The introduction of TcveOtJia might natu-
et
prae se
xveOfxa
be explained as a substitution of the giver of the promise for the But while Paul speaks of the Spirit as the content of the promise (3"), he is not wont to speak of the promises or prophecies as
promise.
given by the Spirit (cf Mk. 123"), and in the absence of such usage it seems necessary to suppose that the phrase stands in the clause by a species of trajection from the clause which expresses the second element of the comparison, ouxtoq xa\ vuv. The full sentence would have read
waxep ydp
eSc'wxe xbv
6 xaxot
adpxa
Cf.
Rom.
That
xveufxa
is
in the apostle's 53
vocab-
51". i?
Rom.
8*^)
may
influence.
it
phrase be thought of strictly must be explained by the fact that the oromIf the
rv,
ise
29-31
267
Spirit.
But
ey^vvYjaev 6 xuptoq.
30.
aWa TL \eyei
yap
rrjs
rj
ypacfyrj;
vlov avrrjs, ov
ixrj
Tov vlov
i^evdepas."
"But what
saith
the
scripture?
Cast out the maid servant and her son: for the son of the maid servant shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman." As
over against the fact that the Gentile Christians arc children of promise he set in contrast the fact of their persecution, so over against this last he introduces with a\\d the language of scripture concerning the persecutor.
21^,
The quotation
that
it
is
from Gen.
ravriqv
fJiov 'Icraa/c
and
follows
the
Lxx
is
except
omits
for
after iraihCdKrjv
at the end.
The language
Abraham, but
probably neither this fact nor the statement of v.^^ ^h^t Qod said to Abraham, "In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken
unto her voice," has anything to do with Paul's use of
passage here.
this
From
significant;
cf.
under
v.^^
Alle-
interpreted
the
to
to the flesh in
adeK(fx)i,
TraibidKr^s
reKva
aXXa
rrjs
iXevdepas.
"Therefore,
brethren,
we
are
children not of a
of the
of the
freewoman."
The omission
"not
of a slave
woman";
to that
which in the
allegorical interpreta-
community
or church.
means that we who have faith belong not to is in bondage to the legal statutes but to that community of believers whose relation
to
God is
268
age
(vv.^'
^).
GALATIANS
Taken
in its connection
it
constitutes a brief
no way diminishes
the allegory being
senting his thought
its
itself
more convincingly to his readers. Cf. on The validity of the argument itself as a piece of exegesis v.2^ depends, of course, upon the validity of the allegorical method in general and its applicability to this passage in particular. Its postulates are that the 0. T. story of Isaac and Ishmael bears a meaning which is to be derived from it by reading it as an allegory, and that Isaac represents the spiritual seed of Abraham, viz., those who, by faith like Abraham's, come into
filial
relation to
God
a father, Ishmael
is
Abraham
simply that of
these premand ascribed a corresponding validity to his argument, or only meant by such an argument to bring his thought before his readers in a form which would appeal to them, is, as said above, not wholly clear. Presumably he did conceive that the argument had some real value; though in view of his use of scripture in general it can scarcely be doubted that it was for him not determinative of his view, but only confirmatory of an opinion reached in some other way. On TraihCaKr]^ cf. v.^^. This verse is so evidently by its very terms note xat5t(7/C7;s,
ises
the
duced
have been
less
thought of otherwise.
So,
v.^^ is
e. g.,
Meyer.
It
is
a matter of
consequence whether
mary
of
21-30^
an inference from v.^" or the sumgut since from v.^", even if the premise, "we
(cf.
Sief.),
be supphed, the
natural conclusion
is
not
"we
"we
it is
more probable that we should take this sentence as the summation of the whole allegorical argument (cf. the use of 5to in
IV,
2
31
269
Cor. 12^
by
this
IV.
(51-6^0)
{a)
Appeal
dom
Having
in
in Christ
i"-22^
defended his
own independent
right
to
3,
upon Gentile
now
^With
this
freedom Christ
set
Paul, say
to
you
to
no advantage
you.
^And I protest again to every man that receiveth circumcision that he is bound to do the whole law. ^Ye have severed your relaYe tion to Christ, ye who are seeking to be justified in law. ^For we, by the Spirit, by faith, have fallen away from grace.
^For in Christ Jesus neither
"^Ye
obeying truth ?
him
^A
little
^/ have confidence,
in the Lord, respecting you that ye will take no other view than this;
but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whoever he
be.
^^And
I, brethren, if
am
still
preaching circumcision,
may why
am
still
being persecuted ?
cross
Then is the stumbling-block of the ^H would that they who are disturbing you
270
1. TT]
fjLT)
GALATIANS
eKevOepia
r)}xa<^
kolX
TTokiv
^vyw
hov\eia<i eVe\;eo-^e.
"With
this
freedom Christ
in
yoke
of
bondage."
With
Zahn,
reading
rj
being
left
'pj^^
gg^-
mark
its rela-
tion to
itself,
what precedes,
side a
if
on the one
summary
of
421-31
(but without
3,
its alle-
gorical terminology)
4 as a whole, and
of chap. to
5.
The
article
before eKevdepCa
is
restrictive,
referring
epistle
that
2^
from
on
for
Qn
Xpt(7r6? r)\evdepcoaev
is,
cf.
substance of thought
31^ 4^.
The sentence
in fact,
an epitome
The
clear exposition of
them
difficult.
The
chief
variations
may
be
set
forth as follows:
I.
eXeu6ep((jt:
eXsu6ep((?
al.
(without v following): XABCD*HP 31, 33, 442, Sah. Arm. Syr. (hard.) Euthal. Thrdt. Dam.; iji ydp eX.:
Tfj:
Boh.; Iv
2.
Tfj
Chr.
D^^^'^K.L, the great
eXeuGepfqc V-
body
of cursives, Syr.
al.
(psh. et hard.)
3.
i'kzuQepicf:
FG
Ambrst. Aug.
II.
iiixa^:
2.
i<*ABDFGP 31, $3, 3^7, mss. of the Vulg. Goth. Cyr. Dam. IXeuGsp. Xp. -^uiaq: S'CKL, most of the cursives,
Tert. Victorin. Hier.
2125,
some
Chr. Thrdt.
3.
Xp.
ifjXeuOeptoaev
oiJv
:
TfjiJ-aq:
Thphyl.
(so Ltft.).
III.
Respecting
1.
After
IXeuOept'?:
cursives,
Marc. Dam.
191 2,
Thphyl. Oec.
2.
After aTTjxsxe:
f
t<ABCFGP
g Goth. Boh. Sah. Eth. Arm. Bas. Cyr. Or '"t- Victorin. Aug.
V,
3.
271
Omit
in
both places:
Chr.
Dam.
fi[Laq
of external evidence thus strongly favours xf) e>v6u6ep{(? XpiQihq rikeuUgoiceV aTY)XTe ouv, and the originality of this reading is confirmed by the fact that it accounts for all the rest. It is
The weight
Alf.
WH.
Sief.
done
so
e>^eu0epf(? as
limitation of TjXeuOipwaev.
But
this construction,
though unusual,
does not seem to be impossible (see exegetical notes). On the other hand, Hort's suggestion that Tfj is a primitive error for ex' (cf. v. ", The only choice is sTc' sXeuOepft? ixXxiQ-qiz) has much to commend it.
between
former.
xf)
IX.
-fjix.,
etc.,
which
is
all
the
The
dative
xfj
eXeuOepf?
is
and
xpoasu^xo, in which case the noun, being quahtative, would be without the article), but descriptive, "by (bestowing) the freedom (spoken
of above) Christ
(ixo9vY)axeiv.
made
this
us free";
cf.
Jn.
12^3,
xoiw Savaxw
i^p-eXXev
view the article is no objection: cf. i Thes. 3^ has all TcaaT] XXI X^F? V xoiipo[iey, where the relative v limiting xafpo[Aev Or i^ "^^.y be a dative of destination {cf. the definiteness of xfi X^P?-
To
Acts 22": xpoexetvavaiJTbv lolqV^aaiv: "They stretched him thongs" with which he was to be scourged). The meaning be: " For the freedom (above spoken of) Christ set us free." interpretation is favoured somewhat by v.^% and perhaps
would then
sence of any exact parallel to such a use of with the article as the former view supposes; while against
the
unusualness of such a dative as it supposes (even Acts 22" is not quite certain) and the probability that Paul would have expressed this idea by dq eXeuGepi'av {cf. Rom. 5^). On the whole the former construction
still
be the correct reading. It is, perhaps, ex' (see textual note above), in which case the meaning would be substantially that of the dative denoting
is
the
more probable,
if xfj
more
likely that
Paul wrote
destination.
I1ty]-/.(j3,
zair]%a,
the meaning not simply "to stand" (as in the gospels), but with intenxdXtv Cf. 1 Cor. 1613 Phil, i" 41, etc. sive force, "to stand firm."
recalls the fact that as Gentiles
Cf. 4' and the burden of Jewish legalism with that of heathenism. notes there. The omission of the article with ^oyG) SouXeiaq gives to the
phrase a qualitative force, and though the reference is clearly to the yoke of legalism, is appropriate after xdXtv because the new yoke
2 72
GALATIANS
which he would have them avoid
borne.
is
'Evix^oBe
snared,"
denoting action in progress, not probably because Paul thinks of them as already entangled (so that the
is
expression would
mean "cease
to
is
of
would
result therefrom.
2. '156 iyco
v^JLds
IlaOXos Xey^
Xptcrros
if ye be of no advantage to you." The acceptance of circumcision is, under the circumstances then existing in the Galatian churches, the acceptance of the
ovdev wcjieKrjaeL.
"Behold,
will
shall
be circumcised, Christ
tion to
to statutes
and
life
This
out the logical outcome of the adoption of the principle of legalism, which he conceives to be involved in the acceptance of cir-
cumcision.
first
Though
circumcision
is
which
spoken of in
this
paragraph and in
(confirmed
by
the implications of chap. 3) makes it certain that it was this rite especially that the opponents of Paul were urging the
moment
concentrated.
Though
the
sentence
is
intro-
it is
evidently to enforce
v. in
Its separation
from that
dis-
paragraph
is justified
^^,
to this
The
first
them
strictly neces-
V,
that follows.
1-2
273
but
Gal.
foou;
6^1
see
As an exclamation Paul elsewhere employs not TSe, i Cor. 15" Gal. i^", et al.; TSe in Rom. 11" and tSexe in
emphatic, see
Thes.
2i 2
112
21^. 20 412 510,
stances of
n 6"
et
freq.
liauXoq, see
2
Thes.
31".
The
doubtless, as in
all
most of
about to say
the weight
The form
future possibility, reflects the fact that the question whether they will be circumcised is still pending. Cf. 1 . The use of the present tense,
at
first
is
not thinking
or result accom-
being substantially conative in force; see note on i^psaxov in ii". What the apostle says is not that to be or to have been, as a matter of fact, circumcised would render Christ of no avail to them (see the contrary
stated in v.^, but that their seeking or receiving circumcision under
the circumstances under which it is being urged upon them would u i Cor. 71*. do so. Observe the use of the present tense, also, in v.^ 6^2,
The
on the other hand, was necessary because of the resulThe view of Alford, that the present tense "implies the continuance of a habit, 'if you will go on being circumcised,' " though grammatically unobjectionable, is excluded by the fact that circumcision could be thought of as a habit, not in respect to individuals, but only as concerns the community; in which case it
aorist in
2^,
if
the
community continued
the already existing practice of circumcision, the community would have no benefit from Christ; whereas, on the contrary, v ^\ confirmed
by the apostle's constant teaching concerning justification, shows that relation to Christ pertains to the individual, not to the
community.
Alford's explanation, moreover, fails to account for the present tense in xsptxetJ-vo^lvw, and is, therefore, probably not applicable to xeptTiti-vijjOe.
The
language, therefore, furnishes no basis for the conclusion that the Galatians had already begun the practice of circumcision. On ouSsv wtpclTjjec, cf. Jn. 6" Rom. 2"^^ i Cor. 13^ There is no
for
ground
specific point of
The absence of any future time, as to the parousia or the judgment. i^, specific reference to these events, such as is expressed in Rom. 2"or implied in
Rom.
i4"'-'=',
makes
it
dates from the time indicated in the subordinate clause; and this
xa-nQPYTjOrj-re
and
i^ziziaa-zz in v.*,
which
see.
74
GALATIANS
irepirejJLVoiievcp
on
6(peLKeTr}S
ecrrlv
iroLrjaaL.
"And
I
is
protest
again to every
man
bound
Joined to
v.^
by
be, this
sentence sup-
why
any
advantage which the relation to Christ would confer, but they assume a heavy burden. The acceptance of circumcision is in
principle the acceptance of the whole legalistic scheme.
The
rea-
this logical
done
so.
cumcision as the
They were now urging the Galatians to accept cirrite by which they could become sons of AbraAbrahamic cov;
ham and
enant
{cf.
chap. 3 passim) they had already persuaded them to adopt the cycle of Jewish festivals (4^), perhaps as serving to
mark them
tians.
off
from
their
On
endeavoured to impose upon their ments of the law, see on 4^^ It is certain only that the Galatians had adopted the festival cycle, that they were undecided
posed to them to undertake to keep the whole law.
MapTupo^at without obj.
(Plato,
differing
ace. signifies, not
"to
call
to witness" (so
d
3.
al.),
but "to affirm," "to protest" 354 (8=); Acts 20^8 26" Eph. 41^,
denotes a strong asseveration, not
from
^jLapTuplw in that it
simple testimony.
IldXiv, "again,"
content of
w."^,
of
which
can not be understood as referring either to the this is regarded as a repetition (Ltft.), for the
is
in thought; or to any none in which this statement is made; nor can it be taken as marking this verse as a second [juzpTupfa, of different content from the former one, for in that case it would have preceded the verb, as in Mt. 4^ 533 Rom. 151"' ''. It must, therefore, refer to a statement previously made to the Galatians, and in that case probably to a statement made on the occasion referred to
two
verses,
V,
in 4i (dtXT]9s6a>v)
3-4
275
and i^ Cf. notes on these passages and 5". The present passage thus furnishes some confirmatory evidence that Paul had either visited the Galatiani or written to them since the visit
spoken of in
able,
41^;
among them
is
improb-
The words xavxl ivepwxcp xepcTe[xvo[jLeva) mean not, "to every one who has been circumcised" (which would call for the perfect
xepiTST^vrjixevq)
or
aorist
xsptT^JLTjOevn),
but
"to
every
is
man
(like
that
receives circumcision."
Cf.
BMT
who
is
124.
The warning
addressed
eav
not to the
man who
but
xsptTritJLVQaGe, v.^)
to the one
contemplating circumcision.
to
one who is under obligation, one who is bound, 6(ps(Xet, do a certain thing; here in effect one who binds himself; for the obligation is, as the context shows, one which he ought not to assume.
'0<fzCkixriq is
Cf. contra
Rom.
i'^
"OXov xbv
v6[xov refers to
the whole
body
of 0. T. statutes, legalisti-
cally interpreted.
No^Ji-oq,
2. (c), p.
457.
For a
is
to
commit himself
logically to the
whole
legalistic
system.
is
The
that
under no such obligation. The freedom of the believer in Christ is not simply from the law's condemnation of him who does not obey its statutes, or from the law as a means of justithe believer in Christ
fication,
The Galatians
but from the obligation to render obedience to these statutes. are not simply not to seek justification by circumcision; they are not to be circumcised; they are not to do the whole law.
4. KarrjpyridrjTe
awb l^piarov
otrives
ev
vopo)
biKaLOvade,
"Ye
who
are seek-
verse expresses forcibly the apostle's thought that the adoption of legalism
is
much more
principle.
is
authorities
XptJ-roj,
but XpuxoO
al.
practically
pre-Syrian
XgiGxoq,
cf.
evidence,
SBCD
On
Titles
p. 395.
276
*Ev
v6[jL(p
GALATIANS
evidently has the
same meaning as in 3" {q. v.), "in the "on the basis of") "legal obedience to
is
statutes," thus equivalent to e^ epywv vd^xou in 2i, etc. ScxatoOaee conative. The present can not mean " are {i. e., have been) justified ";
and a progressive present proper, "are in the process of being justiis excluded by the fact that Paul thinks of justification not as a process but an act, and more decisively by his repeated assertion that no man is actually justified in law (chap. 3" Rom. 320). There is no reason to regard the assertion of this sentence as hypofied"
thetical; it
as referring to persons
among
the Galatians who, having accepted the legalistic principle, were seeking justification in law (c/. 41"). Only, in view of i 51- ", etc., it can
not be supposed to designate the Galatians as a whole, or in view of V.2, be understood as necessarily implying that they have carried their
legalism to the extent of being circumcised.
Wherever
in the epistle
it is
as of a future possibility to be
prevented.
This excludes not the possibility of some having already been circumcised, but the general adoption of circumcision; but there is no positive indication that any have accepted it.
KaTapyso), properly meaning "to
^^
,
make
ineffective," is used in
Rom.
effect
and here
from," "to be unaffected by," "to be without effective relation to." The explanation of the idiom as a brachylogical expression for
xaTTjpYTQGTQTe v.a\ IxwpfaGTjxe
(Ltft., Sief., et al.),
of
Rom.
9'
and
ble; for while in these latter instances the expressed predicate applies
is
simply
left to
by dtxo, and the be supplied in thought, this The idiom is rather to be ex-
Rom.
7^,
where consistency with both preceding and following context would require 6 v6[xo<; lOavaxwOTj u[xlv. Cf. the English expression, "He was presented with a gift," for "A gift was presented to him." The use of the aorist tense, denoting a past event viewed as a simple fact, has, in contrast with the present StxatoOaOs
a certain rhetorical force; as
tion in law.
if
"Your
justifica-
which
is
The English perfect best expresses the force when the event belongs to the imme-
^MT 46,
52).
rrjs xapt-Tos
i^eweaaTe.
x^P^'''^^
The
article
with
"Ye have fallen away from grace." marks the word as referring specifiGod or of Christ which was the distinctive
V,
4-5
^77
to the Galaelement of the gospel which Paul had preached Grace, by virtue of on Xapts. tians. Cf. t.\ and special note
have faith, itself which God accepts as righteous those who the principle of legalism, according cludes, and is excluded by, which one has performed to which the deeds of righteousness has earned. Cf. accredited to him as something which he
are
312
ex-
They, therefore, who are seeking justification abandoned, the of legaHsm have fallen away from, viewed, the one conception excludes divine grace. Logically destroys the other. the other; experientially the one experience
116.
God
as
at the same time the the bookkeeping God of legaHsm and gospel, who accepts men because gracious God of the Pauline can not live the life of devotion to the keepof their faith.
One
and at the same time a ing of statutes, which legahsm calls for, in the God of grace. faith in Jesus Christ and filial trust life of of the two conThis strong conviction of the incompatibility logically, is doubtless grounded ceptions, experientially as well as
in the apostle's
own
experience.
Cf. 2^\
The verb
"to
fall
is probably used out of," with various derived significations, a preposition, with usually when limited by a genitive without here, as hold upon" (ttj? x^P'-^o'^ bemg the meaning, "to fail of," "to lose one's however, here in the sense that the a genitive of separation), not, Antiq. 7- 203 (9O, grace has been taken from them (as in Jos.
divine
tbq
that
. . .
they have
IxxIcnQxe
abandoned
xoO
fSc'ou
it.
Cf.
2 Pet.
9uXdeaaaee
Yva
cjTTQptY^oa.
[l^i
in law involved as an For to affirm that their seeking justification divine grace (note immediate consequence the penal withdrawal of the above aorist in relation to the present StxatouaOe; cf.
on
xGCT-npy-neTj-ce)
tion.
On
Win.-Schm. XIII
12.
^ap irvevfJiaTL e/c TTto-recos eKirida diKaLoavvrjs cnreK"For we by the Spirit, by faith, wait for a dexoiJ^eda. we in contrast hoped-for righteousness." ^M^ts is emphatic, the hold to legalism. irvevfxaTi is used without with all who
5. r)ixeis
article,
reference to hence quahtatively, but undoubtedly with 5^^- '' '', and see in 3^ the Spirit of God. Cf. the similar usage
278
special note
GALATIANS
on Uvevfxa and ^dp^^
s^^'
^^' ^^
p. 491.
is
is
expressed
He who
seeks divine acceptance by law is in reality relying upon the flesh. See Rom. f^-8\ We, on the other hand, depend not on flesh but on the Spirit. The word Suatocrwr;
is
best understood in
its
to ethical character
is
and
which
^o).
and expectation
(Phil. 39-
etc.,
di ayaTTjs evepyovixevq in v.^ as indicating that the apostle is here including the ethical aspect of righteousness. The whole
sentence introduced by
ing the assertion of v.^
ydp is an argument e contrario, confirmby pointing out that we, i. e., we who
hold the gospel of grace, look for the realisation of our hope of righteousness, not in law, eV voixo^^ but on the one side by the
Spirit of
God and on
is
IIveu^aTc
to speak
more
also
probably a dative of means, limiting dcxexBexoiAeOa, or, exactly, the verb of attaining implied in dxsxoexdtAeOa,
"By
the Spirit
we expect
to
attain," etc.
ex.
denotes
and expressing the subjective condition of attaining eXx. power by which it is achieved. ' A.-Kzv.lixy^di, used only in N. T. (Paul, Heb. and i Pet.) and in considerably later writers {cf. Nageli, Wortschalz, p. 43; M. and M.
xveu[xaTt,
8tx.,
Voc,
s.
V.) signifies
dtx6
apparently inten-
by
ex,
The
phrase
of
interpretation,
xv5.u[j.aTc
is
God,
"by a Spirit which is received by faith," the ex xfoxecoq thus qualitatively designating the Spirit neither grammatically impossible (cf. Rom. 8'*, xveuixa
i^',
7cveij[JLa
ulobealxq.
Eph.
GO<ploLq
xal
dxoxaXu^^ewq.
Rom.
3",
IXaaTTQptov Std
cases),
are,
31^:
IxayyeXfav tou
relation
xftrxewq
(cf.
Yet the nature of the which this interpretation assumes between xveu^juzxi and ex is such as would probably call for xveu(jLaTt T(p ex xfaxewq
xfjTst
.
.
2^\
GeoLi),
is
while,
Rom.
3".
V,
'EXxfBa, as
that which
StxatoauvTjq
is
is
5-6
is
2 79
required by d%ey,Ux6[ieQa,
for.
used by
hoped
2''
Heb.
6^'.
may
phrase be supposed to be taken by metonymy "a hope of righteousness," standing for "a, hoped-for righteousness," or a genitive of description (appositional genitive) if the metonymy be thought of as
affecting the
the whole
word
cf.
IXxt'Sa alone.
In either case
'^^^
it is
which
eXx.
is
On
dtxexSex.
xpoaSexotJ^evo^
[xax.aptav eXxi'Sa.
Eur.
21% xalq
ad loc).
6. eV
yap
Jesus,
irepLTOiJLri
tl
tcr^uet
ovre
in
aKpol^voTT la^
aX\d
"For
Christ
neither
circumcision
availeth
anything,
nor
uncircumcision, but
faith
For the
fundamental idea of the nature of religion, there is no more important sentence in the whole Each term and epistle, if, indeed, in any of Paul's epistles. eV Xpto-rw 'It^ctoO significant. construction of the sentence is
disclosure of the apostle's
(the bracketing of 'Irjcrov by WH., because of its omission by B. Clem., seems scarcely justified) limits lo-%ut. It is not
eV
means,
by Christ Jesus"; nearly equal, therefore, in modern phrase, to "in Christianity," "on With to-%i)et (from ^schylus down, " to the Christian basis."
which
is
created
have strength," "to be able," "to avail") is to be supplied, not hiKaiovv ("is able to justify"; cf. Acts d^""), which would be to limit the thought more narrowly than the context would warrant, but ets kKaLoavPTjp
tence,
,
as suggested
by
and
By
the following
nominatives, these nouns are given a qualitative force, with emphasis upon the quality and character of the acts. This
phrase
5t'
"by their very nature circumcision," etc. The ayaTrjs evepyovp-evr) furnishes a most significant
filled so large
a place
28o
this epistle
GALATIANS
used the word aydirr], but, though often using each
Rom.
1^^322, etc.;
nowhere
else in
and any
The
relation
two words into immediate connecbetween the two terms, which is here ex-
made
is
clearer
by a consideration
two
re-
Faith
committal
by
Avhich Christ
becomes the controlling force in the moral life of the behever. See esp. 2^0 and cf. detached note on Ilto-rts and
Hto-reuco,
is
V B.
2^0,
2. (e),
love (see
But the principle of Christ's life p. 482. rov ayaTrjaavros, etc.; Rom. 5^-^ S^^-^s). Faith
See also
v.22,
ments which
life
life
by
the
and expression of love, see especially i Cor., chap. 13. On the meaning of aydwT], see on v.^^ That the apostle added the words
love;
effect
of faith) produces
^ xtcrris probably due to his having in mind, even here, that phase of the matter which he discusses more fully in vv."^-;
alone
is
cf.
di
Rom.
31-",
and
matters
to be
more
that freedom from law leaves the life without moral dynamic, he answers in a brief phrase that faith begets love and through
it
becomes operative
in conduct.
and
and
love,
shows how
fully
Paul had
and
That he
says not simply irepiTOjir] ovhev la'^va^ but ovre irepLTOfirj ovT aKpo/3v(7TLa naturally impHes not only that he is
.
.
opposed to the imposition of circumcision upon the Gentiles, but that he repudiates every conception of religion which makes
V,
physical conditions of
therefore, in
6-7
essential to
vv.^'
^,
28i
it.
any kind
The
sentence,
no way contradicts
if
of Christ.
cision
He could have said the same thing about uncircumhad he been addressing men who were in danger of
religion.
Cor.
y^^- ^^:
irepLTeTfirjfjievos
tls iK.\7]d7];
is
iinaTdadoj.
The
deov,
teaching in this
For though in
"a keeping of divine commandments," fills the place occupied here by Tiaris di aydwrjs ivepyovfiej^r), v." here shows that these two expressions are at bottom not antithetical
but in
effect equivalent.
'laxuw, from
^schylus down,
is
in
Mt.
5'^
to
Rom.
7^ 2
Cor. i
i.
4'=
Eph.
Thes.
21'
51^;
active,
Anl. 15. 145 (53). used of persons: i Cor. i2' " Gal.
13"; Jos.
The
2^ 3'
Eph.
Sta
but mediate agency, the object of the preposition being that through which the Tziaziq becomes effective, is made practically certain not on
grammatical grounds, but because of the nature of the two attitudes expressed by xtaxtq and dy^xr] as conceived of by the apostle. See above in the larger print. See note on Sia under i' and cf. 2 Cor. i,
is
expressed
by
ev.
Since xtaxiq
is
without
may
be attributive,
it
220
izbxiq
iyepfou[iivri,
likely that
iirj
weudeadaL;
were running well; who hindered you from obeying truth? " As in 4^^, the apostle breaks off argument to make an appeal to
"Ye
by reminiscence
of the former
conduct
282
GALATIANS
fell
to
this
time
cTpe^eTe
On
of a result, see 2^
Rom.
gi* i
Cor.
g^^
3'.
It
is
probable that in
in the sense
first in
all
mind the
figure of
running
a race, as expressly in
evxoxxa) is used by Hippocrates i Cor. g'*'*^ "to make an incision," but with the meaning "to hinder" Polybius. Here, if the figure is that of a race, the word suggests
up
of the road.
The
on the other hand, is progressive, so that the meaning of the whole expression is, "who has succeeded in
preventing you from continuing to obey truth?" and the implication
is
that,
fully
nents, they have ceased to hold firmly to that which Paul taught them.
xec'OeaOai
difficult to
meaning.
notes not merely intellectual assent, but acceptance which carries with
it
control of action;
(inf.
Acts
5''
" ";
Rom.
2*.
On
the construction
of xe(8a6ac
with
Bl.-D. 42g.
The omission
force,
of
BMT
though what the apostle has in and 2^* he calls f) dXifjOeta xoG euayyeXcou, he desires to emphasise the quality of his message as truth, thus conveying the implication that they are turning from something
a qualitative
and shows
that,
mind
is
2'
that
of
is
true to
something that
g' 2
is false.
4^1.
(k'k-qQeKx
Rom.
Cor. 6^ Eph.
Some
article here
(omitted by i<*AB).
Evidently some
that the reference was to the truth of the gospel, stumbled at the qualitativeness of the expression.
8.
is
rj
Treia fxovT]
ovk
e/c
tov koKovvtos
vjias.
"This persuasion
with
persuasion just
The
to
restrictive article
iri(j}jLovr)
makes
it
refer
definitely
that
spoken of, viz., the persuasion no longer to hold (his message which is) truth. By rov koKovvtos Paul means God. On the meaning of the term and its reference to God, see on i^; and on
car-
the positive intimation that the influence which is affecting them is one that is hostile to God, an intimation
with
it
which
is
Usia[ioYq
may
Thes.
i';
Just.
Mart.
Apol. 531) or passive (Ign. Rom. 3' Iren. Haer. 4. 33'), and it is imposThe passive sense sible to tell in which sense Paul thought of it here. involves the thought of a persuasion actually accomplished, the active
an
effort.
but
ev^xotj^sv
shows that in
the tense and
Paul's thought
was
On
modal
substantively), see
BAIT
and
Thes.
2^'
s''-
9. fiLKpa
^viJirj
6\ov TO
(f)vpaij.a
Iviiol.
"A
Uttle leaven
is
same words
in
Cor.
5^
The occurrence of exactly the and the way in which they are there
used indicate that they were a proverbial saying, referring to the tendency of an influence seemingly small to spread until it
In
of
and
jivpaixa represents the Corinthian church, whose whole moral Here, over against the life was in danger of being corrupted.
negative statement of
v.^, this
by a
few,
is
permeating and
of the Galatian
life
is
present (as in
It agrees with all the other evidence of the epistle in indicating that the anti-PauHne movement had as yet made but Uttle,
On
an
Tb
qjupati-x
t;uiJ.oI,
cf.
Exod. 12", and on leaven as a symbol of however, in Mt. 13" Lk. i^^'^- "), see Ltft.
ds
vfias
ev Kvpio) otl
ovdh aK\o
(jypoprj-
cere' "I have confidence, in the Lord, respecting you that ye will take no other view than this." With the abruptness
284
GALATIANS
which characterises the whole passage, the apostle turns suddenly from the discouraging aspects of the situation to an
expression of hopeful confidence.
The use
of iyco emphasises
"I, at
ets vjjias 2 a)
in reference to
eV
whom
(Th. els B. II
i.
the confidence
is felt;
e.,
who
c;
cf.
ground
these passages)
is
ness of expression
of
may mean
in general
no other view
Most probably
v.^.
an expression
community
The
iizi,
of Galatian Christians.
Cor. i'
2' 2
Thes.
3*),
and
sv
with an
33- *),
that which one trusts; (b) ev with a personal object (Phil. 2-* 2 Thes. 3* and the present passage) designating the ground on which confidence
rests;
(c)
elq
To
take
u^?
as denoting
ples with this verb, or of the preposition as used with other verbs;
for
elq
Christ
(cf.
p. 480),
for thinking
that xixotOa elq would be used with similar Cor. 8", xsxo[0Y)jt
eiq b[xaiq, is
because
it
The
V,
forty times.
10
is
28s
rendered practi-
That it means "in Christ," not "in God," by these considerations: (a) of ev Xptaxw, or Iv tw Xptaxq), or ev Xptaxcp 'I-qaoii there are about eighty instances, and in many of these the connection of thought is closely similar to those in which (b) In seven cases (Rom. 6' 141^ i Cor. 15" ev xupt(j) is employed, I Thes. ji 41 2 Thes. i^ 3'^) y-upup after ev is defined by a preceding or following 'I-ojoG, XptuTqJ, or both together, as referring to Christ, and
cally certain
is
similar to that in
which ev xupiw alone occurs, (c) ev Oew and ev tw Getp occur but rarely in Paul (Rom. 21' 511 Eph. 3" Col. 3' i Thes. i^ 2 2 Thes. i>), and in
two
is
joined xupftp
in such
ways
as to
show that
ev
Against these
is only the fact that in general xuptoq without the article refers to God, 6 x6pto<; to Christ. But the force of this general rule is diminished by the further fact that in set phrases, especially prepositional phrases, the article is frequently omitted with-
on
IlaTT^p as applied
God, p. 387.
On
oiSelq
&Xkoq
6 5e
y.
"but
he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whoever he may Tapdaacov might refer to a particular individual be." In itself
identified or unidentified,
past, or future.
But
oans iav
fj,
position
ticular
rapdaao^v as ^) requires us to take designating not a particular individual mentally identified, but
as referring to
article is distributive generic, as in 3^2,
303, 304; a present general supthe future jSaaTacreL, and a present par-
{BUT
any one who hereafter may disturb them. The u j^. ^is. Doubtless
this is
of in i^ Tives
but another way of referring to those who are spoken eicnv ol rapdaaovres vfxds, Kal BeKovres ixeeuayyeXtov
tov
')(^pi(JTov,
Taarpexpai to
and
is,
in v."
for
as ol
avacFTaTovvTes vidds.
effect, referred to
Only
their
conduct
rhetorical
not as a fact but as a future possibiHty, as in i^ and an indefinite singular takes the place of a definite plural. TO Kpifia undoubtedly refers to the judgment of God, which
carries
Cf.
with it by implication the consequent punishment. Rom. 22' 3 38^ and esp. Rom. 13^. How or when the punishment will be experienced the sentence does not indicate; there
286
is
GALATIANS
in
nothing to show that the apostle has especially or exclusively mind the messianic judgment (Rom. 2^^).
Baaxa^w, used by
in the
classical writers
It is
it
times.
periods, apparently,
employed both
In N. T.
it
in
literal
sense of bearing a burden (Mk. 141' Jn. 191') and other similar senses,
and metaphorically
times in the sense
Gal.
62'
1'.
of
mental processes.
endure": Jn.
i6'2
it
occurs several
151.
''to
Acts
i5>''
Rom.
Cf. also
Of bearing punishment
11. 'Eycb
8l(oko fxai;
8e,
a8ek(j)0i^
I,
el
if
irepironi^v
I
ert
Krjpvaaco,
ti
en
"And
still
brethren,
am
still
preaching circumcision,
why am
being persecuted?"
Still
by the
who were
troubling the Galatians were using as one of their weapons a charge that the apostle was still, when it suited his purpose,
preaching circumcision.
As evidence
of
the
is
falsity
of
the
being persecuted,
implying that
K7)pv(j(J02
it
was
for anti-legalism.
cumcision.
life,
since
The reference is doubtless to his pre-Christian we have no information that he ever advocated cir-
On
passage.
still
on that was for the charge that he was advising circumcision, and whether the charges referred
What
basis there
to the
circumcision of Gentiles or of
was something to give colour to it may perhaps be inferred from I Cor. y^^, if we may assume that even before writing Galatians he had said or written things similar to that passage.
Jewsdoubtless
there
On
Acts
The
1 63,
see below.
clause
ef
. . .
conditional
xTjpisjw,
of a simple present supposition, evidently expresses an unfulfilled condition 245; cf. 2" 318 Rom. 4= Jn. 18"), while the apodosis takes
{BUT
the form of a rhetorical question, meaning, "I should not be persecuted." On the possible uses of stc, cf. on ii". Despite the seeming parallelism, the two words ext can hardly both be temporal. To
"still as in
my
pre-Christian days,"
is
forbidden
by
V,
lO-ll
287
cir-
the fact that he was not in those days persecuted for preaching
cumcision.
is
"still as in
my
cision
if
he had
been he would not have been persecuted. If both are temporal, the meaning can only be, If I am still as in my pre-Christian days, preaching circumcision, why do they, having learned this, continue that persecution which they began supposing that I was opposed to circumcision?
is
the interpretation of
logical opposition;
the
first ext
am still preaching Rom. 3^ circumcision, why am I despite this fact persecuted?" The bearing of this passage on the historicity of the statement of Acts 16' with reference to the circumcision of Timothy belongs, rather,
c/., e. g.,
than here.
If the
narrated and became the occasion for the charge to which Paul here refers, why he made no further reply than to deny the charge, and that
only by implication, can only be conjectured. Perhaps knowing that the Galatians and his critics both knew that he had never objected to
the circumcision of Jews, and that the only question really at issue
of Gentiles
who accepted
unnecessary to
make any
dpa KaTr)pyr}Tai to
cision
"Then
if
is
the
/. e.,
circum-
may
a stumbKng-block.
or
be maintained, the cross of Christ has ceased to be rb (TKcivhaKov rod (Travpov is that element
accompaniment of the death of Christ on the cross that makes it offensive (i Cor. i^^), viz., to the Jews, deterring them
from accepting Jesus as the Christ.
in Christ
Whatever else there may have been on the cross to make the doctrine of to the Jews, that which above all else
made it such was the doctrine that men may obtain divine acceptance and a share in the messianic blessings through faith
in Jesus, without circumcision or obedience to the statutes of
Moses.*
* Cf. the words of Chrysostom quoted by-Alford ad loc: " For even the cross which was a stumbling-block to the Jews was not so much so as the failure to require obedience to the For when they attacked Stephen they said not that he was worshipping the ancestral laws.
288
It is natural
GALATIANS
and reasonable
of Christians
to suppose that this sentence reflects
Paul's
own
pre-Christian attitude,
(ii"-
when
^
his
own
law made
him a persecutor
else
Phil. 3).
Had
been something
than
its
oflfensive to
case the removal of this element would have left the doctrine of the
cross offensive to those
who
still
And
its
this fact in
movement
is
had an
anti-legahstic element.
The
that, in his
legalistic,
judgment, had Christianity been content to remain Jewishit might have won the Jews, or at least have maintained a
respected standing
among Jewish
sects.
The
conflict
former sought to reach the nations at the risk of to the Jews; the latter would win the Jews at the sacrifice of
nations.
other
view of Paul the testimony of the book of Acts is in harmony, both in its indication of the large number of Jews who attached themselves to the legalistic Christianity of James and the
With
this
Jerusalem church, and in the bitter offensiveness to them of the antiSee esp. Acts, chaps. 15 and 21 15-22. legalism of Paul. Ltft. understands the sentence as ironical (cf. 4^^), meaning: "Then
I
of preaching,
and
am
silent
about the
cross."
But
to the
warrants.
On
in
and
Cor.
1518,
implied in
12. "0(f)e\ov
"I
would that they who are disturbing you would even have themol avaararovvres are evidently the same selves mutilated." who are directly referred to in i^ as ol rap da govt es vfid<;, and Tapdaao^v of v.^'^. cnroKoypovr ai is clearly hypo the tically in
shown by usage
refer not,
except quite indirectly (see below), to a withdrawal from the Christian community, or any other Hke act, but to bodily
mutilation.
presses the wish that his opponents
In the bitterness of his feeling, the apostle exwould not stop with cir-
V,
ciimcision,
II-I2
There
is
289
possibly
a tacit reference to the emasculation of the priests of Cybele, with which the Galatians would doubtless be familiar and,
quite possibly, in the apostle's mind, at least, though he could
it,
to the
is
The whole
expression
showing that to Paul circumcision had become not only a purely physical act without religious significance, but a positive mutilation, like that which carried with it
most
significant as
It
is
''I
who advocate
logical conclusion
this physical act would follow it out to the and by a further act of mutilation exclude
where he applies
of such
To get
the
full significance
language in the mouth of a Jew, or as heard by Jewish Christians, we must imagine a modern Christian speaking of
if
On
ocpsXov,
dvaaxaTow,
see
M. and M.
"I
Voc.
s.
v.
a shortened
force of
wcpe)vOv,
ought,"
has
in
N. T. the
Lxx
(Ex. 16'
Num.
and elsewhere
in
N. T.
(i
Cor. 4*
here only, probably with the intent of presenting the wish rhetorically
it
such.
BMT
27.
Rem.
with
'AxoxoxTsaOac
an
accusative of specification,
to:
yevvTQxtxa,
to
be
still
common
in the East.
ziq
See Deut.
s.y.y.\r]Gix\>
stjE^XeujovToct
2.
OXaBi'aq
20'':
ol
ouSe
axoxexo^xpLevoq
Kupt'ou.
Epict. Diss.
ix%OY.XO'^[t.iyoi
Tcjv dvBpdiv
Ill 8
(3);
"nri~i'i:3
Philo, Sacrif. 325 (13); Leg. alleg. Dion. Cass. 79". ~Cf. Keil and Delitzsch on Deut. 23^: [Lxx OXaStac] literally 'wounded by crushing,' denotes one
dxox64'aaOai ou ouvavxac.
"19
290
who
is
GALATIANS
mutilated in this way; Vulg. eunuchus attritis vel amputatis
iddb'
oflf
;
testiculis.
nnp [Lxx
uT:oy.exo[i\iiwq] is
memvel
VI
est.'
2,
sunt,
(nnr), cujus
membrum
is
praecisum
In
the
generally performed in
ii.
this
way.
p.
7]
an occasion
flesh (5^3-26)
law that
men from
case,
imit
who accept
as
if
this
were the
he
fall
This exhortation
he enforces by the assurance that thus they will fulfil the full requirement of the law, that they will not fulfil the desire of
the flesh, nor be under law, and
hand
of the
works of the
flesh,
"For ye were
whole law
in one
word, even in
Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. ^^But if ye are biting and devouring one another, take heed lest ye be consumed by one another. ^^But I say. Walk by the Spirit and ye
this,
^"^For the desire of the flesh is
against that of the Spirit, and the desire of the Spirit against that
of the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, that whatsoever
ye will ye
may
not do.
the
works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, wantonness ; "^Hdolatry, witchcraft; enmiunder law.
^^Now
V,
ties, strife,
12-13
291
ing which I
tell
told
you in ad-
vance f that they ivho do such things will not inherit the kingdom oj
God.
gentleness, self-control.
Against
is
no law.
'^'^And
disposition
let
and
its desires.
we
live
us walk.
^^Let
us
one
not
become vain-minded,
one
another,
envying
another.
13. 'T/xts
yap eV eKevdepla
It belongs
eKKijdrjTe, ade\(j>OL'
"For ye
is
it
Like
v.^ this
sentence
gives a
reason (ydp
it is
is
causal) for
of the
an epitome
in behalf of the
But
it
belongs with
what
of
follows in that
new aspect
"Ye,
vfiels,
immediately following
vfJids of v.^^^ is
emphatic.
whom
On
v.i,
Toij
1^;
Thes. 4^ Phil.
is
41".
eXeu0ept'(j:
spoken of in
On
i'/.X-qQ-qze, cf.
on
vJ and more
fully
on i^
On
dSsXipot, see
on
i^K
ixovov
iJLr)
Trjv
eKevBeplav
els a(f)Op}ii]v
used also in
i^^ 2 10
viously mentioned,
his
thought throughout
On
this
thought of the epistle turns from freedom to a sharply contrasted aspect of the matter, the danger of abusing freedom.
So
far
is
292
GALATIANS
not under obligation to keep the statutes of the law, and though
specifically to
circumcision, food,
and
any
to
portion or aspect of
it.
is
easily taken to
gence of his
{cf.
own
impulses.
Of
Rom.
6^*^-
danger Paul is well aware and beginning with this v. meeting and averting it. The
a purely physical term,
^^'
word
is
in a
"that element of man's nature which opposed to goodness, and makes for evil," in which it appears
also in
Rom., chap. 8; see detached note on Tlvev}ia and ^dp^ and the discussion following 7. For fuller treatment, see Burton, Spirit, Soul, and Flesh, chap. VI, pp. 186, 191 ^. Of any physical association with this ethical sense of the term there is no trace in this passage.
II
7, p. 493,
The
and through
to that of 51
On
cf.
\i.^
Vofys
[JLT]
V-^^ouc,,
[jLup{ouc;,
[jLoi
Dem.
Irt,
Devarius,
Dc
Particidis,
supplied,
Qxgicfzxs.
whether
e'xsTe,
TpixsTS
Sief.
Ell.
et is
al.),
2i' 20)^
or
some
this
other,
not
for,
wholly
clear.
The thought
-fj
is
freedom
of zlq,
dt(pop;x-q,
cf.
Jn. 16*0:
xapav
made (Thucydides,
with the mean-
Polybius),
et al.,
ing, "incentive,"
"opportunity," "occasion."
V,
this latter
13-14
same phrases
53 A;
as in Isocrates
7*' ";
293
and DemosBiBdvat,
meaning, and
in the
thenes:
d?opti^v
Xa^elv, Isoc.
Rom.
<i<popti.^v
Dem.
54619; 2 Cor.
5"
(c/.
L.
and
S.).
It is best
The
article is
term
is
at least semi-personified.
dXXa
This
is
ahke to the harmful restrictions of legalism and the dangers of freedom from law: love, expressed in mutual service. On what 'kyaTif), he means by ayd-Kt), see on v.^ and detached note on of love here emphasised is clearly that of The phase p. 519
benevolence, desire for the well-being of others, leading to efforts on their behalf, bov\ev(^i, generally meaning ''to yield obedi4'- '), is evidently here ence to," "to be in subjection to" (see
employed
which hovKos someand meaning "to render service to," "to times has {cf. on i^"), do that which is for the advantage of." Having urgently disin a sense corresponding to that
suaded the Galatians who were formerly enslaved to gods that he are not really gods from becoming enslaved to law (4^ 5^), paradox, bids them serve one now, perhaps with intentional
another, yet clearly not in the sense of subjection to the will, but CJ. Rom. of voluntary devotion to the welfare, of one another.
J
214-21
J415 J
Cor.
II25-33.
See also
used.
hioLKovos,
not SoOXos,
is
and
activity.
'AXXi
as often
{cf.
Rom.
i^i
command (German,
sondern).
v., or,
The
perhaps, in view of the distance of this v., to that love which is charCf. 1 Cor. 13' 14^ Rom. 12'. 8t(i, as in acteristic of the Christian life. lis, marks its object as the conditioning cause, that the
lio.
xiigiioq,
possession of which
makes
on
Sta in
i^.
yap Tas vo^ios iv evl \6yco TeirXrjpcoraL, eV to) 14. " 'AyaTT]aeis tov ttXtjcflov aov cos aeavrov^ "For the whole
294
I
GALATIANS
is fulfilled
law
in
this,
Thou
neighbour as thyself."
practically all his effort
striking paradox.
Having devoted
up to this point, directly or indirectly, to dissuading the Galatians from coming into bondage to the law
obey its statutes, he now gives as the reason one another that thus they will fulfil the whole But the paradox is itself most instructive; for it shows
to
by undertaking
law.
was
tian.
Rom.
84.
The explanation
paradox
lies
partly
apostle employs
it
obedience and
Cf. vv.
6'
fulfilling
2. (d), p. 458); partly, but to a less between keeping statutes in slavish law as the result of life by the Spirit.
1^
consistent
The apostle's statements become intelligible and only when it is recognised that he held that from the
whole law as statutes, from the obligation to obey any of its statutes as such, men are released through the new revelation
in Christ;
and
that,
all
God
really requires,
is
when
seen with
eyes
made
discerning
by
experience,
love,
therefore fulfils the whole law. Statutes he will incidentally obey in so far as love itself requires it, but only so far, and in no case as statutes of the law. Cf. the apostle's bold apphcation
of this principle
even to chastity in
Cor.
6^'^,
showing that in
also
when
it
things prohibited
excluded by love,
that they were to
was on the latter ground, not the former, be avoided by the Christian.
of this sentence turns in
The
put.
precise
meaning of
It
no small part on the on which diverse interpretations have been has been interpreted above as meaning ''is fully obeyed."
xsxX-rjptoTat,
meaning
This interpretation demands substantiation. -KXrigbui, a classical word, from ^schylus and Herodotus down, means properly "to fill," "to make full"; its object is, therefore, a space empty or but partly filled.
V,
In this sense
it
14
13*8
295
Lk.
Jn. xiK
Em-
ployed tropically
"to
fill,"
"to
fulfil,"
thought of under the figure of a receptable or empty vessel. It is used " to fill," " to supply abundantly" (a) with a personal object and means,
Acts 13" Rom. I";
pictured to the
filled
(b)
mind
as a receptacle to be
with reality; thus of a promise, prophecy, or statement of fact, "to satisfy the purport of," "to fit the terms of": Mt. i" el freq. in Mt. Acts ii 31*, etc.; of commands and laws, "to satisfy the requirements of," "to obey fully": Rom. 8< 138, probably also Mt. 51^; of When the object is a task or course of needs, "to satisfy": Phil. 419. action it means "to complete," "fully to perform": Mt. 3" Lk. 71
Acts 12"
2.
When
the object
is
thought of as something
incomplete, and requiring to be filled out to its normal or intended measure, its meaning is "to complete," "to make perfect": Mk. i'^
Jn. 78 1511
In Rom. 8* 138 Paul uses the word as here with vo^aos, i62<. and quite unambiguously in the sense, "fully to obey"; this fact The creates a strong presumption in favour of that meaning here. use of the perfect tense, also, which might seem to favour the meaning "to make perfect" (the sentence in that case meaning, "the whole
etc.) is suffi-
by tccxXt)?(ox.v in Rom. 138: 6 ya? ayaxoiv Tbv sTspov xxX-r)ow/.sv, "he that loveth his neighbour stands in the position
of having fulfilled law, is a fulfiUer of law," the tense in both sentences being a gnomic perfect (BliT 79). The present sentence then means, "The whole law stands fully obeyed in (obedience to) one word," etc.
in
So Luther's translation (though freely expressed) " Alle Gesetze werden einem Worte erfiillet"; Stage's German version: "Das ganze Gesetz
:
et al.
The meaning
completed," though entirely possible in connection with such a word as v6[jloc, is practically excluded here (a) by xaq in 6 %aq \6[xoq, indicating that the apostle is speaking, not of the law as incomplete, but as already complete, and (b) by the evidence of Rom. 8<
(2) "is
The meaning "is summed up" (so Weizs., "geht in ein Wort zusammen," and Stapfer, "se resume d'un seul mot") is also appropriate to the context and harmonious with xaq, and But it is opposed by the evirepeats the thought of Paul in Rom. 13'.
138 in favour of "fulfil."
dence of Rom.
clearly distinguishes
where Paul using both xXtq?6o) and avaxe^aXacdw in meaning, using the latter in the sense "to sum up" and the former to mean "fulfil," "obey fully," and by the fact that x)vT]?6tL) is never used in the sense which this interpretation requires either in N. T., the Lxx, or in any Greek writer so far as Sief. cites thirteen of the older commentators and transobserved.
138.
3,
them
lators
who
take xsxATjpwrat in
the
sense of
dvaxscpocXatouTat.
An
296
GALATIANS
examination of nine of the ablest of these authorities shows no
cographical basis for the position taken.
tirely untenable, reason
lexi-
The
given
is
dvaxe^aXatoGxac in
xexXiQpwxev in
The
usual;
v6[j.o<;
a distinction
to
and the noun vdixoq is unbe drawn between the more usual x5; b
and the form here emplo3^ed, the latter expresses more clearly the idea of totality, without reference to parts. See Butt., p. 120; Bl.-D. 275. 7; Acts 19^ 20I8 27"; I Tim. ii. The context makes it clear that the reference is to the law of God; but clearly also to the law of
God
it is
this that
2.
(d), p. 459.
Aoyoq, meaning "utterance," "saying," "reason," etc., always has reference not to the outward form or sound, but to the inward content; here it evidently refers to the sentence following. Cf. Mt. 26" Lk. 7'^
etc.
asauxov
is
191s,
following
detached note on 'Ayaxaw and 'AyaxT]). In the original passage, n, though in itself capable of being used colourlessly to denote another person without indication of the precise relationship,
^^'^^ ^>:7.'?,'?^^,^%
doubtless derives from the context ("Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself") a specific reference to fellow Israelites.
as, of
which enjoin or express a hostile attitude to non-Israelites or to personal enemies (Deut. 23'-^ 251^-19 Ps. 4110 69"-28 log'-'s), the apostle
disregards, as he does the specific statutes of the law, such, e. g., as those requiring circumcision and the observance of days, which he
conceived to be no longer valuable and valid. His affirmation is to be taken not as a verdict of mere exegesis, summing up with mathematical
exactness the whole teaching of O. T., and giving
to each
phase of
it,
is central, pervasive, controlling, from what exceptional, affirms the former, not introducing the latter even as a qualification but simply ignoring it. It is improbable that he drew a
sharp distinction between portions of the law, and regarded those which were contrary to the spirit of love or not demanded by it as alien elements intruded into what was otherwise good; at least he never intimates such a discrimination between good and bad parts of the Rather, it would seem, he looked at the law as a whole, as one might view a building many parts of which taken alone are without
law.
V,
14-16
297
Its
form or comeliness, yet which as a whole is wholly beautiful. total meaning was to him love; and this was the law of God;
parts as such had for
the
him no
authority.
15.
jjlt]
vt
aX\'^\cov ava\<jodrjT.
"But
if
by one another." The and the tense of the verbs imply that the apostle has in mind a condition which he knows to be, It would but slightly or thinks may be, even now existing. exaggerate this suggestion to translate, "If ye continue your
another, take heed lest ye be consumed
form
and devouring of one another." What the condition which he referred neither the passage nor the context discloses; most probably it was strife over the matters on which the judaisers were disturbing them.
biting
was
to
The
verbs Sdxvw,
x,aTea6ca),
dvaXfuxw
(all
of
common
use in classical
two from Homer down, the third from Pindar down) suggest wild animals engaged in deadly struggle. The order is climactic, the first and second by virtue of their respective meanings, the third in relation to the other two by virtue of their tenses, 8dx.vexe and y.aTec0t'sTe being conative presents and devaXwGi^Ts a resultative
writers, the first
aorist.
ov
fxr}
reKea-qre.
"But
I say,
not
5e,
fulfil
Walk by the Spirit and ye will The use of the phrase Xe^co
Cf.
Rom.
10^8. 19 iji,
11
j^8
Cor. lo^^
Cor.
ii^^.
By
as in
TTvevjiaTi
Paul undoubtedly
God
v.^
in v.i^
So also (jdp^ manifestly has the same ethical meaning as (See detached note on livevixa^ HI B. i. (c), p. 491, and
7,
^ap^
p. 493.)
TrepiiraTelTe
is
reXearjTe.
BMT
v.i^
269.
is
The
progress
already doing;
Over against the danger spoken of in cf. 3^ 5^ and the possible suggestion of the judaisers to the Gala-
295
tians, or the fear of the
GALATIANS
Galatians themselves, that without the
them to do right they would them to continue to govern their conduct by the inward impulse of the Spirit, and emphatically assures them that so doing they will not yield to the power within them that makes for evil. The type of life which he thus commends to them is evidently the same which in vv.^' ^ he has described in the words, "For we by the Spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus
pressure of the law constraining
fall
2^^
in the words,
"It
is
no
longer I that Hve but Christ that liveth in me, and the
I
life
that
now live in the flesh, I live by faith, faith upon the Son of God"; and which is described below in v.^^ in the words, "If ye are led by the Spirit," and in v.2% "If we live by the Spirit." On the identity experientially of life by the Spirit, and the life
of Christ within, see p. 222.
The word
xeptxaxio),
this epistle
here only,
is
of
"to
This
live,"
literal sense, it appears in Paul and the John exclusively in the figurative sense, with the meaning "to conduct one's self." See, e. g., Rom. 6* S* 2 Cor. 10'.
is
idea
Hebrew by
"iSn
and
is
Lxx by
820 Eccl. ii), but far more commonly by xopeuw (Ps. i^ 26i- >i etfreq.). As compared with the parallel expressions in v.is (ayeaOe) and in v.a
(t!,(I);i.ev),
(v.").
and with both IxtOu^jiiav and aapx6q emphasises the contrast in character between the Spiritcontrolled type of life and that which is governed by impulse of the flesh. Cf. 3', though the meaning of the word adc?^ is different there. On the different senses in which the words xv0:jLa and aap? are set in antithesis to one another, see detached note on nveOij,a and Sdtp^, p. 494. TeXio), a word common in Greek writers, from Homer down, signifies, as its relation to xiXoq suggests, "to bring to an end," "to complete," "to perfect"; hence of a task, promise, and the like, "to fulfil." In N. T. it means: i. "to finish"; 2. "to perform," "execute,"
of the article with xvU[xaTt
The absence
V,
"fulfil"; 3.
i6
299
"to pay."
extOup-ta aap-Ktq
affirms,
ou
jjl-?)
xeXsaTrjxe is
equivalent to an em-
{BMT
command, but
it.
For
though
with a subj.
is
in classical writers,
Lxx, and N. T.
(GMT
297,
BMT
the general situation, which requires that the Galatians shall not so
much be commanded
in xsptxaTslxc,
tive
(vv. i^- 1) favour an asserand predictive sense rather than the rarely occurring imperative
force.
'ETCt0u;j.ta and extGu^xsco, both occurring in classical writers from Herodotus down, properly express desire of any kind (exi 6u[x6<;, "heart for," "impulse towards"). In classical writers excQu^xi'a means "desire," "yearning," "longing": Hdt. i"; Thuc. 6. 13I; with object,
gen. :Thuc.
2.
52^;
Antipho, 115".
eOoq,
i?Ae/. i.io^
(i369a5):
&jTe xavra
8t
.
.
ocja
cpuatv,
.
Sia ^tav,
Si'
Xoyta^xov,
Sea
extOuyifav
(1369b),
IxcOufJiiav
fjSla.
The
de-
sires
to
the senses
(in this
Plato calls
xaxA
-zh
adi'^a IxiOutxi'at
(Phaed. 82 C).
i-xiOuixix
In the
Lxx and
Apocr.
occurs frequently,
being used of desire shown by the context to be good (Ps. 37"), or evil
or without implication of moral quality (Deut. 12 is.
of evil desire this
1212,
is
20.
21),
When
of
it is
employed
either indicated
iS'". "^
or as in Sir. 5=
itation as aou or xapSias aou, the evil lying in the element of selfish-
ness or wilfulness;
all
when
sexual desire
is
not at
in the
word but
in the limitations of
exi6u[xiai is
2o<).
21
in I' does
ual,
stand alone, apparently meaning evil desire, perhaps sexthat are opposed to sobriety (aaxppoauvT)).
is
(xi:6T];
on
%xQr}\).a, v.-*)
In the
Lxx and
Apocr., also,
is
it
is
good
(Ps. ii9'"''
"
Wisd. 6'0, of desire which it is wrong to cherish (Ex. 20^7 Prov. and without moral implication (Gen. s'^^" 2 Sam. 23^^). The same is true of the verb in N. T.'; it is used of good (Mt. i3>' i Tim. 3O or evil desire (Rom. 7^ 13') according to the requirements of the con-
300
text.
GALATIANS
It
is
clearly without
moral colour
The
noun
(Lk.
is
also, as
2 2i' I
used in N. T., carries in itself no moral implication Thes. 2" Phil. i"). When it is used of evil desire this quality
by a limitation of the word, or by such limitation combined with the larger context (Jn. 8" Rom. i" Col. 3^ etc.). And though there appears in N. T. a tendency (of which there are perhaps the beginnings in Sir. and 4 Mac. also) to use ztci^o-mx for evil desire without qualifying word (see Rom. 7'- * Jas. i'^), it remains for the most part a word of neutral significance without distinctly moral colour. The idea of sensuality conveyed by the word "lust" as used in modern English belongs neither to the verb extOua^to nor to the noun exc0u[jn'a in themselves, and is, indeed, rather rarely associated with them even by the context. In the case of the noun the implication of evil (not necessarily sensuality) is beginning in N. T, times to attach itself to
usually indicated
its use.
17.
T)
yap
CFap^ iiTiduiJLel
Kara rod
irvevidaTos, to 5e iwevfjia
Kara
r?}?
aapKos, ravra
yap
iroirfre.
jjlt) a "For the desire of the flesh is and the desire of the Spirit against
that of the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, that
whatsoever ye
will
ye
may
not do."
yap
is
confirmatory and
v.^^,
that walking
(rdp^
v.^'',
by the Spirit will not issue in subjection to and (JapKos evidently have the same meaning
a generic use of adp^ with the
article,
the fiesh.
as crapKos in
but for the qualitative use of that verse the apostle substitutes
by w^hich the force for and irvevixaros retain the meaning of irvevixari in v.^^, save that by the use of the article they become definite, pointing directly to the Spirit of God, rather than referring to it quahtatively as in v.^^ ravra yap
evil is objectified.
So also
irvevjia
avTiKeir ai
r]
is
. .
terms of
yap
rrjS
it
adds nothing
to the thought.
More probably
v.^^,
at
ravra yap a
in the soul
to the conflict
of
I
which neither
mutual
antagonism.
To
there
is
an approx-
V,
i6-i7
301
imate parallel in the antithesis between Satan and the Spirit xhe use of einSviiel with <jdp^ and its antithesis in Mk. 323-27,
to TTvevixa in a personal sense involves a rhetorical personifica-
it
as actually personal.
. .
.
whether Yva
dvTt'xstTat means, and depends on this or the preceding clause, in which is also involved the question whether y^:? after Tauxa is explanparenatory or confirmatory, and whether the clause introduced by it is thetical, the following data are to be considered:
On
xo-.fiTs
1.
?v(5c
There
in
is
no
sufficient
of xotfj-re as a clause a purely ecbatic sense, and tva Nor can this clause be regarded as a clause of conactual result. a ceived result {BMT 218), since the principal clause refers not to conceived situation (denied to be actual, as in i Thes. 5S or asked
. .
about as in Jn. 92, or affirmed as necessary as in Heb. 10'"), but to one Nor are any of the other sub-telic directly and positively affirmed. as usages of Tva clauses possible here; apparently it must be taken
purely
telic.
ed:v
by the
flesh, desires,
and understanding
by the
Cf. also
Rom.
y'S
is
used of a state
regarded as wholly undesirable. the whole verse as refer2. This clause also excludes understanding themring to a conflict between the flesh and the Spirit as forces in
without reference to any experience of the reader. aapxo? the other hand, to interpret the first clause, tj yap avTt'xstTac a meaningless in an experiential sense makes TaOxa and obstructive repetition of the preceding statement. ya? to It seems best, therefore, to understand the sentence from ^
selves,
3.
On
aapxoq as referring to the essential contrariety of the two forces as This contrariety the apostle adduces as proof (rap) of the such. statement of v.i" (they will not come under the power of the flesh by
coming under the Spirit, for the two forces are of precisely opposite tendency), and in turn substantiates it by appeal to their own experience, the reference to their experience being intimated by the use of the second person in the telic clause. The change in point of view
from
is,
What
v.i"^
itself
condition that
is
is
in
(a)
ensues
by uxb voixov of v." (see notes below), apparently suggested by the thought of v.i"'; (b) by reference
suggested
Rom. 6", where, after urging his readers not to continue in sin, the apostle abruptly introduces the expression uxb v6'aov in such a way as
to
302
to
GALATIANS
show
is
that,
though he has not previously in this chapter spoken of all the time had in mind that it is under law that
sin; (c)
one
by comparison
of
7'*-8S in which the apostle sets forth the conflict which ensues
Rom. when
one strives after righteousness under law, and from which escape is possible only through the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, freeing one from that other law which, though
it
can
command
the good,
it.
"Iva xotfjTs as a pure final clause is to be understood not as expressing the purpose of God, this conflict being represented as a thing desired by him (for neither is the subject of the sentence a word
.
.
referring to
God, nor
is
nor of the
flesh alone,
both
flesh
and
accordance with the mind of the and the Spirit opposes the flesh that they may not do what
they
evil,
him.
are led
"But if ye ye are not under law." In this sentence the apostle harks back for a moment to the point of view of the
by the
Spirit,
first
v.^6,
part of the chapter, w.^-^, complementing the statement of that to walk by the Spirit does not involve subjection to
the flesh,
by the
be under law.
way
of life
by the Spirit is not to by the Spirit constitutes distinct both on the one hand
from legalism and on the other from that which is characterised by a yielding to the impulses of the flesh. It is by no means a
middle course between them, but a highway above them both, life of freedom from statutes, of faith and love. The introduction of the statement at this point may be due to a desire, even in the midst of the warning against the danger of converta
ing freedom into
an occasion
is
to the flesh, to
guard
his readers
now
really retracting
what he has
and turning them back to legalism disguised as a under the leading of the Spirit. This was an entirely possible danger for those to whose thought there were only the
life
by law or no
v.^^
restraint.
Or
perceiv-
V,
Spirit
17-19
S^^
selves in
and the struggle in which those find themboth Spirit and flesh are still working, might seem to justify a doubt whether to walk by the Spirit after all assures one the victory over the flesh, and having in mind that the conflict is it is in the case of those who are under law that
and the
flesh
whom
thus indecisive, he answers the doubt by saying, "But this does who walk by the Spirit; for if ye are led by
the Spirit ye are not under law."
ground
case.
There seems no decisive between these two explanations of the occasion of the sentence; its meaning remains the same in either
of choice
Holy Spirit, quaHtaThat the term is nevertheless distinctly individual is shown by the connection with the verb dyecrde^ which, though practicaUy synonymous with the Treptxaretre
TTvevixari is here, as in v.^^ the
of.
tively
spoken
and
^(ofxev
in V.25 the intimate and vital nature of the relation of the Christian to the Spirit. Cf. Rom. 8": oaoi yap TrvevfxarL deov
The
conditional
clause
ex-
pressing a present particular supposition conveys a suggestion, as in TrepiTraretre, of continuance of action in progress, "If ye
are continuing to be led
by the
Spirit."
vtto v6ij,ov is
undoubts.
21)^
as
it is
the apostle's
aim
to
free.
To understand
v.^^
ethical sense in
which
it is
used in
Any
^'^. the statement into conflict with the plain implication of vv.^^other sense than one of these two is wholly foreign to the
context.
19. (I^apepa 5e eariv
Ta epya
flesh,
rrjS
aapKos,
v.^'^
"Now
the works
Having
in
the apostle
now
it
reverts to that
statement (5e
is
by enumerating
mind, as he writes this sentence, the content not only of vv.^o- 21, but also of VV.22- 23. The purpose of both enumerations is, of
304
course, the
viz., to
GALATIANS
same as that
of the
whole paragraph from vv. ^^-^s, v.^^^, not to convert their lib-
by
love,
which
is itself
to be achieved
is
by
living
by the
Spirit.
This the
Cor.
3I'
any
one
may
see,
The appeal
is
to
common
knowl-
edge.
e?ya
is
than in the passive, products; for though the latter sense is occasionally found, I Cor. ^^*' '^ (sing.), Acts 7" (plur.), yet Paul always uses spya
(plur.) in the active sense.
The term
as here used
may be
sinful
associated in
his
vo'^xou
For that
is
he regarded
from Rom.
Ipya
deeds
clear
6^*
7''".
Yet xa epya
xfig
japxoq
is
v6;xou; for
by the
latter phrase
deeds
fall
could not be
aTivd
cr/at,
ianv
iropveia^
aKaOapaua,
aaeXyeua, 20.
Kal
to, 6}ioLa
etScoXo-
0^oVot,
tovtols,
idolatry,
'which
are
fornication,
uncleanness,
wantonness;
carousings,
divisions,
envyings;
drunkenness,
and the
four groups,
The words in this list of vices fall into indicated by the punctuation of the translation.
sins in
The
first
which sensuality
in the
narrower sense
in
is
present; the
natural accompaniments.
(CKL. al pier.) maintain the plural end of the list, reading epstq and i^f)Xot, and after fOovoi add This text Sd. adopts. The text above is that of SB, supand
is
On
class
axtvoc,
see note
on
4=*,
p. 257.
axtva eaxtv
Ltft.),
are"
(so Ell.
and substantially
V,
19-21
in general,
305
and
in this passage
it is
means
meaning
the less probable because the idea "with others of the same class"
is
expressed in the
words xal xa
8[Aoca TouTotq
in v.".
Ilopveta, rarely
Dem.
Lxx and
xopvYj,
in
N.
T.,
probably
signified origi-
"a
commonly bought
slaves),
(i)
(icopvo.; in
meant one
tropically,
^
etc.,
and
(2)
Jehovah": Hos.
vice
5^ Isa.
i'' Mt. 5" Acts "the worshipping of other gods th?ai 57 Ezek. 1615 Jn. 8^^ (?) Rev. 2^1 921, etc. Here
On
among
it
Gentiles,
to regard
as innocent, see
Cor.
5'' 1 62ff-,
and commentaries on
Thes.
4^^-.
of a sore or
employed in Hippocrates and Plato of the uncleanncss wound, and in Demosthenes of moral depravity, is used in
et
the
295.
Lxx
i,
freq. (so in 2
Chron.
or perhaps in the
or of
Vni
1 1 28^5,
more literal sense, "dirt"), as in Pap. Oxyr. "moral impurity," "wickedness," with no special
6i
(Lxx);
Esdr.
i^'
Ezek.
9', etc.
In
N. T. once only of physical filth, or of that which is ceremonially defiling, Mt. 232' (yet even here as a figure for wickedness); elsewhere of moral impurity. The latter instances are all in Paul (Rom. i" 6'', etc.) and seven out of the nine stand in association with jcopvet'a or other word denoting sexual vice. It is probable, therefore, that in the present instance also the apostle has in
in
mind
dy.aOapjta
even than
Cf.
Eph.
5', icopvsi'a
is
so in Plato, Isaeus,
Demosthenes,
xspl
-zaq
In
Polyb.
2>7-
2*
the
it
addition
of
the
to
words
IxcOu^taq
makes
refer
especially
lewdness,
yet
djeXYsca
Lxx
3
itself means simply "wantonness." It is not found in the (canonical books), and in the Apocr. only in Wisd. 142s and
2-5,
Mac.
In N. T.
it
Mk.
7^2
Pet.
18^
Cf.
is
Trench,
Synom.
XVI, who
not exclu-
Yet
in
"wantonness," "unrestrained wilfulness." view of Paul's association of it elsewhere with words denoting
3o6
sensuality
xopvefa
GALATIANS
(Rom. i3' 2 Cor. 12-' Eph. 419) and its grouping here with and dcxaeapata, it is probable that it refers here especially to
in sexual relations.
wantonness
jcopvsfa,
Like ixaOapata,
less
specific
than
and referring
violation of
any indecent conduct, whether involving the person or not, ijiXyeta differs from dxaOapafa in
to
its
that the latter emphasises the grossness, the impurity of the conduct, the
former
its
wantonness,
unrestrainedness.
his sin;
Lightfoot's distinction:
iaeXyTji;
of the words.
public,
and
dcxaOapjia
carries
djayeta.
Cf.
Eph.
Lxx, occurs
in
N. T.
(i
Pet. 4')
and thereafter
in ecclesiastical
writers.
the gods of the Gentiles or their images, and the term e^SwXoXaxpfa
eiStoXov, signifying in the Lxx and soil. image of the god (Acts 7" Rev. g^") or the god represented by the image (i Cor. 8*' iC), e^StoXoXaxpfa doubtless shared its ambiguity, denoting worship of the image or of the god represented
N. T.
''
by
it.
4>ap[jLaxta
[or -eb],
is
Homer down
denotes a drug,
the use
9ap[j.ay.(a
signifies in general
by a physician, or harmfully, hence poisoning. In Demosthenes, Aristotle, Polybius, and the Lxx it is used of witchcraft (because witches employed drugs). In Isa. 47' it is a s}^onym of IxaotSif), enchantment (cf. also Philo, Migr. Ahr. ?>2,, 85 (15); I Enoch, chap. VIII, Syn.). In the Lxx the word is uniformly employed in a bad sense, of witchcrafts or enchantments: of the Egyptians (Exod. 71'. ), of the Canaanites (Wisd. 12^, of Babylon (Isa. 47'- '''). So also in N. T. passages. Rev. 9^1 (WH. text yxpfxaxdiv, mg.
9appLaxta>v,
as also Tdf.);
like
and in the present passage, the reference is to witchcraft, sorcery, magic art of any kind, without special reference to the use of drugs. The meaning " poisoning " (Demosthenes, Polybius) is excluded here by the combined evidence of contemporary usage and the assoto Babylon),
On
its
various forms, see Acts 8ff- i3ff- igi'ff- 2 Tim. 3"; Ltft. ad loc; B'ble Dictionaries, under " Magic, " and literature cited there and in Ltft.
"Ex9pat, a classical word, from Pindar down, occurs frequently in
the
Lxx and N.
T.
it
denoting
"enmity," "hostility,"
in
V,
"Epi<;,
I9-20
307
Homer down;
"wran,
in
Homer
ing," "strife";
Homer
gling," "contention."
latter
It occurs in Ps.
139" (B);
Sir.
28"
40^-
in the
two passages in an enumeration of the common ills of life. The nine N. T. instances are all found in the epistles ascribed to Paul, Zrikoq occurs in classical writers from Hesiod down; by Plato and Aristotle it is classed as a noble passion, "emulation," as opposed to
(p06vo<;,
"envy"; but
in
Hesiod
In the
ing.
its
expression
In the
Lxx
and N. T. three meanings may be recognised: (i) "intense devotion 2^8 to, zeal for, persons or things" (Ps. 69", quoted in Jn. 2^% i Mac.
Rom.
25"!^
io 2
Cor
it
(2)
thought that
Lxx);
session of good, or
by another's posby
Rom. 13"
s^*'
^O-
it is
last-named sense.
0uijl6<;, a classical word in frequent use from Homer down, signifying "breath," "soul," "spirit," "heart" (as the seat of emotion, both the gentler and the more turbulent, and as the seat of thought) " tem,
very frequently in the Lxx, translating various Hebrew words, and in the Apocr. (over three hundred times in all). Its meanings are (i) "disposition" (Wisd. 7"); (2) "courage" (2 Mac. 7"); but in the great majority of cases both in
It occurs
Lxx and
Tou
8utJLoij
Apocr.
(3)
tj
6py^
to
and
God and
meaning "wrath"; with reference to the wrath of God in i4i''- 1^ is^- i6^- ^' 19^* (in 161' and 1915 in the phrase b Qw^hq ir]q dpy^q); of the rage of Satan in 1212, and
men.*
In N. T. the Apocalypse uses
it (a)
(b)
b Qu[ihq
-zr^q
xopvet'aq auT^; in
Elsewhere in N. T.
2
it
means "anger":
Eph. 4" Col.
3*
of
men
in Lk.
4^8
Acts
19=8
5=0
Heb. II"; of God in Rom. 2' only. As compared with dpyn, Q\j[i.6q denotes an outburst of passion, bpy-q a more settled indignation; in accordance witti which distinction 0u[x6q tends to be used of the reprehensible anger of men, Spyrj of the righteous wrath of God. Yet the
* The apparent Lxx u->e of 0vfj.6^ in the sense of poison (Deut. 32"- " Ps. Am. 6") almost certainly arises from infelicitous translation of the Hebrew
word
in that sense.
3oS
distinction
is
GALATIANS
not steadfastly maintained, as appears from the facts above stated, and especially from the occurrence of the expressions Gunbq dpyfjq and 6pji} %[x.ou. The meaning of the word in the present passage is its most common one in biblical writers, "anger," "passionate outburst of hostile feeling."
etymology, but having no relation to eptq and with Ip'.Qoq, "a daylabourer," "a wage-earner" (from Homer down), specifically IptOog, "a woman weaver," Dem. 1313s; in this sense in the only Lxx instance,
'EpcGi'a
(of uncertain
doubtful
relation
-J)
Isa. 3812.
IpcOt'a first
In Polyb.
10.
by
co-operation of," "to inveigle into one's party," but in Tob. 2"
means "to labour for wages," or more probably "to spin." In Philo, II 555 (Mangey) aveptOcUToq is used in connection with d?tX6vscxo?
(fiys[xovta
S' a(fiX6yz:y.oq
y.al
dvept6euToq
It
is
6?0i?)
[i6vt]),
apparently mean-
that though the extant examples of the noun are relatively few (more in N. T. than in all previous literature so far as noted), yet the word had a long history and probably bore side by side both its original meaning, "working for wages," and its derived sense, referring to office-seeking. The paucity of other examples gives to the N. T. instances a special value
for lexicography.
thus
evident
When
it
either the literal sense or precisely the Aristotelian sense of office-seeking possible. It remains, therefore, to seek a meanis
of
them
ing cognate with the meanings elsewhere vouched for and consonant with the context of the N. T. passages. Examination of the passages
from
these
this point of
(2)
"selfishness."
is
view suggests two meanings: (i) "self-seeking," "factiousness," "party spirit." The former of easily derivable from the original sense, "working for wages,"
all
and 12"
is
Cor.
Phil,
2' Jas.
3".
18
et
h.L).
The second
and
2.
is
ii^ 2'
and
distinctly inappropriate to
it
Rom.
passage
should be observed
(a)
that there
to suggest the
is
meaning "party
certainly
more prob-
form of
IptBtaq
toI; of
Se e^
ixetOouat
sv
t^
dXTjGst?
in
effect
the
idea
this
twv
ttPjv
iXT]0tav
i8tx((jc
xaTex6vT(i)v
its
(Rom.
and that
phrase neither in
itself,
nor by
further
V,
20
party
spirit,
309
but does
by
We
is
contextual definition refer to the self-willed, self-seeking spirit. seem, therefore, justified in deciding that sptOt'a in N. T. means "self-seeking," "selfish devotion to one's own interest"; that this
its
all
is
in
the corresponding concrete sense, factions. But there is no evidence to show that the word had such a concrete sense, and both the meaning of the word Ipya
(v.^')
passage in the plural (to designate various instances or manifestations of the kind of conduct expressed by the noun) deprive this argument
of
is
is
any
force.
The
position of
eptOt'at
if
between
Qu[iol
and StxoaTaatat
epcGt'at
means
self-seekings, this
by terms denoting those things to which such selfand alpsasiq; if it means efforts to advance one's party, actions inspired by party-spirit, it stands as the first in a group of three nearly synonymous terms. On the whole the preponderance is slightly, though only slightly, in favour of that meaning
naturally followed
seekings lead,
^ixoa-:(xaiai
which
is
for the
"selfishness."
by Herodotus and Solon in the by Theognis, meaning "sedition," is not found in the Lxx; occurs in Apocr. in i Mac. 3^3 only, with the meaning "dissension"; is found in N. T. here and Rom. 16'' only, in both cases in the plural and without doubt meaning "dissensions." Aifpsatq, in classical writers, has two general meanings, one associated with the active meaning of the cognate verb, alplco, hence "a taking," "capture" (Hdt.), the other with the meaning of the middle,
Acxoaxaata, a classical word, used
sense of "dissension,"
alploixat,
(Find,
.^sch.
Hdt.
will,"
"choice."
In late Greek, after Plato and Aristotle, there arises the meaning "philosophic tendency," "school," "party." So in Dion. Hal., Sext.
Emp., but
"^olq
Ss l^TjXo'jatv
tt?)v
czYpsatv auxdiv
(the Essenes).
and xpoat'peats are used of the soul, doubtless as that in which the power of choice lies. Cf. M. and M. Voc. s. v. In N. T. it is always associated in meaning with the middle of the verb, and usually signifies a body of people holding a chosen set of opinions; thus without reproach, of the Sadducees, Acts
5>'; of
As a term
of reproach,
denoting a group or sect reprehensibly departing from the general body, In i Cor. iii' and 2 Pet. 21 it seems to signify, it occurs in Acts 24".
rather,
3IO
cretely "party," "sect."
epte{ai)
GALATIANS
The
to
abstract meaning
is
also
(c/.
above on
is
more appropriate
N. T. or
in Patr.
the
present
passage.
The meaning
not
6'; cf.
found
in
Trail. 6^;
Eph.
Zahn on
Herm. Sim.
it is
9. 23'
and probably
not here.
on
Pet. 2^ in Meyer-Weiss.
i.
iiS
means "heresy"
<I>e6vo^,
(Ltft. 2),
which
is,
however, of
"ill-will,"
"malice," "envy"
2"^*
(cf.
under
6';
Apocr., Wisd.
6"
Mac.
27I8
818 3
Mac.
151"
So also in N. T. (Mt.
Mk.
Rom.
except in Jas.
4',
where
it
it is
session of,"
and
is
words are to
"envyings."
be discriminated,
The
MdOat and
writers
by themselves.
]xi%ri
occurs in classic
from Herodotus and Antipho down, meaning, (i) "strong drink," (2) "drunkenness," and with the same meanings in the Lxx (in Hag. i apparently meaning "satiety" rather than "drunkenness"). In the Apocr. and N. T. it occurs in the second sense only, xw^oq (of doubtful etymology) occurs in classic writers from Homer down, meaning "revelling," "carousing," such as accompanies drinking and festal processions in honour of the gods, especially Bacchus; it is not found in the Lxx; occurs in the Apocr. in Wisd. 14" 2 Mac. 6S and in N. T. in the same sense as in classical writers; in Rom. 13'' it is associated as
here with
[i-i^ri,
in
Pet.
4',
in Reitzenstein,
Poimandres, p. 342; Mead, Thrice Greatest Hermes, For a discussion of Gentile morals, see L. Friedlander,
Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, 8th ed., 4 vols,, Leipzig, 1910; E. T. from 7th ed., New York, 1909, 1910; de Pressense, The
II,
II,
pp. 424-432;
Pater, Mariiis the Epicurean; Bottiger, Sahina. References to Gentile authors are to be found in de Pressense and Becker, and with especial copiousness in Friedlander's great work.
a irpoXeyoo v}ilv Kadoos Trpoeiirov otl ol ra TOLavra Tpdaaovres ^aaiKeiav deov ov KKrjpopofjL'^aovcnu. ^'respectino-
V,
20-2I
I
$11
which
I tell
you beforehand, as
list
who do such
of the
works
from follow-
ing its impulses, Paul adds the weighty statement which he had already made to them on some previous occasion that such
things exclude one from participation in the
kingdom
of
God.
By
^aaCkeiav deov the apostle doubtless means the reign of God which is to be inaugurated on the return of Christ from the
heavens and the resurrection of the dead. Cf. i Cor. with I Thes. i^*^ 4"- ^^ The phrase used without the
with either noun
is
is^o-
^^
article
and emphasises the ethical quality of the order of things for which the phrase stands and the incongruity between it and ol ra roiavra wpaG-aopres; thus
qualitative
1 15^^ suggesting the reason for their exclusion. Cf. i Cor. 6^' This qualitain all of which the phrase is as here anarthrous.
tive force
the reading
of
S*BFG
Vulg.
xat
is
(am.
fu.
added by ^''ACDKLP al. omn. ^^d. d e g tol. Syr. (hard.) Boh. Arm. Mcion. Clem. Chr. Euthal. Thdrt. Dam. Irit. Hier. Ambrst. Both readings are pre-Syrian but xai on the whole seems to be a Western corrup-
demid
al.)
Gyp. Aug.
al.
by the Syrian text, occasioned by the natural impulse to emphasise the comparison between xpoXeyo) and xpoelxov. Cf. i Thes.
tion adopted
4*-
"A
it,
is
is
in Jn.
S^^,
ov
b[i.eiq
Xijzze
when he wrote
it, it is
given
it a new construction. Cf. Ell. ad loc. npoXsyd) might consistently with the usual force of xpo in composi-
tion
and the
classical
mean
either "foretell" or
"forth
tell," "tell
publicly."
But the
i
is,
it (2
Cor. 13'
Thes.
and
N. T.
in-
a prediction, and the inappro" publicly " (for the meaning " tell plainly
in fact,
it
make
its
meaning here
"to predict."
GALATIANS
0\ xpdaaovTeq
is
means either "the things previously mentioned being of such quahty as they are," or "the class of things to which those named belong.'' Cf. i Cor. 5^ Rom. i 2^. 3 Eph. 5", and for xotauxa without
TocaGxa
Td
Heb.
the article, meaning "things like those spoken of," Mk. 7^3 Jn. gi" 8'. See Kuhner-Gerth 465. 5; Butt. 124. 5; Bl.-D. 274. The considerations that necessitate taking the phrase ^aat^elav,
The
apostle
undoubtedly looked for a personal visible return of Christ from the heavens and expected the resurrection of the righteous dead in connection therewith, i Thes. ii" 415-". (2) In 1 Cor. 15^" he speaks of
inheriting the
kingdom
of
God
men, and in such way as to show clearly that the inheritance of the kingdom, as thought of in that passage at least, is achieved through
the resurrection.
It is natural to suppose that the expression has the
same meaning
same
epistle (6^.
'o)^
there
being nothing in the context to oppose this meaning. In i Thes. 2^2 the eschatological significance is most probably though not quite certainly present. There are, indeed, a number of passages in Paul in which the kingdom of God is spoken of with so distinct
emphasis on
quality and with such absence of eschatological suggestion that it must be questioned whether he uniformly gave to the phrase eschatological significance. See Rom. 14'? i Cor. 4^0. It is probable,
its ethical
therefore, that the apostle thought of the kingdom of God both as present and as future, in the latter case to be inaugurated at the return of Christ. But the considerations named above are sufficient to show
clearly that
it is
the future kingdom that is here in mind, while it is he intended to emphasise the ethical quality of the
is,
kingdom, which
future.
fxaKpodvfXLa,
iyKpcireLa-
22. o Se Kap7rb<; rod TTPevf^aTO^; iartv aydirr]^ X^P^y ^i-PWVy xPV^^'^ottj'; , ayaOoyavvt}, Trto-rt?, 23. TrpavTr]<^^
the mutual contrariety of flesh and Spirit begun in v.^^. By the attractiveness of the members of the series beginning with ayaTrr], Paul appeals to the Galatians to follow the leading of the Spirit, as
''But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." This sentence continues the argument for
by the repulsiveness
of the vices
named
in vv.
^^-^i
he had
V,
Be
is
21-22
$13
antithesis to the
works
of the flesh.
KapTro?, used in
Cor. 9^
Tim.
2^), is
Phil,
i^^
4^7, etc.).
The
choice of the
word here
in preference to
epya
perhaps partly due to the association of the word epya with the phrase epya vojxov (see epya alone used in this sense, Rom. 327 42 911 116)^ partly to his preference for a term which
(v. ^9) is
etc.,
Observe
the
word ^wjiev
and
cf.
2'^^.
The
serves to present
by the
Spirit.
stress
it
when employing
word
On
between
rod
irvev/xaTO'?,
irvevfiaro';) or
cl>avep(ocn<;
tov
7rvVfJLaro<i, see
p. 489,
and Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des 77/. The two Hsts, the present
contain but one
Cor.
12^-^1,
common
term,
and
this is
and
(^avepoicTL^
God
(i
Thes.
2^^),
were regarded as
effects
and evidences
These are
of the
all ex-
and
Cor. 12^
6 KapTro^
mind
of Paul,
were
Cor.,
See
314
chaps. 12-14, esp.
1221,
GALATIANS
chap. 13, and 14^
Thus while
retaining
3^),
listed in vv."-
"
fell
in the apostle's
mind
into
dydTCTg,
towards other
men
vv."-
^*),
and
is
Cf. v.^*
and
list
of
Cor. i^*'^
with the
TTjt;
(v.'*), X9fl<^'^^-
with
xprjuzeuB'zoi.i
(v.'');
TzicYta
uxo[JLivet
xpauTTjq with ou
9U!3toijTat,
oux,
dtaxiQtxovel
(v.^).
x<xp&
and
efpir'jVT),
the
first
certainly,
have
Spirit to
others, in a
works of the
flesh; i-fy.p&xeia,
Gu^j-oi
in the list of
list,
also in this
seems
two terms
of the preceding
and
devotion to God,
suggestion of
clear instance of
is
v.'*,
(2
Thes.
3^ is
the only
iy'^''^^ '^^
men
upon appreciation
Xapi:, in use
of value
is
chiefly
man
from Homer down, and about fifty times in the Lxx and Apocr., is employed in the Lxx, Apocr. and N. T. rarely of a fierce and cruel joy (3 Mac. 41" 5" 6"; cf. also Jas. 4'), but most frequently of joy that has a religious basis, grounded in con-
by
classical writers
scious relationship to
Phil,
i^'
God
Rom.
is
14^' 15''
etc.).
On
eJpiQVTfj,
Its
meaning here
probably
the same as in
Rom.
51,
"tranquillity of
God
is
possible here,
it is
an unusual meaning
it it is
and there
is
is
not in
itself
inappropriate, yet
V,
22
s^5
it does here between the more specific terms, x^pa and [xax.po6u[x(a; the meaning, "peace with men," is appropriate in connection with either x^9<^ (<^f- Rom. i4''> ^^) is
open to the objection that, elpTQvtj in that and ^a/,po6u;j.ca, xapa stands quite alone, the only non-transitive word in the group. On e(p/)VTQ denoting tranquillity of mind, and associated with yiocpic, cf.
or with ti-axpoOutifa, but
case expressing a relation to men, as do also dyaxTj
Rom.
15":
6 Se
xXirjpclicjat
'^'^^
efpiQVTQq i,
Iv Tq> ictaTsuccv.
On
Spirit, cf.
eipiQVTj
Rom.
xb
xstl
efpTQviQ,
though
perhaps has
Rom.
5*'*,
where hope of the glory of God, the sequel and accompaniment of peace in the sense of tranquil assurance, is the result of the love of God shed abroad in the heart by the Spirit of God. MatxpoOuiJLta, found first in Menander, fourth century B. C, occurs
rarely in non-biblical writers,
It has always the
and but five times in the Lxx and Apocr. same general meaning, that which its etymology sugunder provocation to change," the which
is
meaning
endured
is
thought
of impersonally,
signifies
Hence
(a)
"patience,"
"persistence,"
"steadfastness."
57" i Mac. 8< Col. i" 2 Tim. 310 Heb. 6'Jas. 51; (b) "forbearance," endurance of wrong without anger or avenging one's self, "long-suffering" (i) of God and of Christ towards men: Rom. 2* 9" i Tim. ii i Pet. 3=" 2 Pet. 3'^; (ii) of men towards one
So
in Plut. Lucidl. 2,2' 2>3^; Isa.
another: Prov.
25^5 Sir.
5"
3^2 2
Tim.
3"' 4.
In
usual usage and the context, to be taken in the last-named sense, viz.,
forbearance towards
anger.
Xp-rjcjTdTTQq,
is
signifies
in classical writers, of
"kindness."
it
often, it occurs
sometimes
in the
el Tit.
(Plut. Phil,
X9'^'^'^^'^f]'^^
'^'hl
oixsttoauvYj?
xXaxuTepov t6-
ext>va[ji.^4:vouaav.
m Agis
17^
it
with
cp'.XavOpwxt'a
in
Dejnetr. 50';
Dem.
el
Cic. 3=).
In the
is
Lxx
from this
root,
io6-';
and
used meaning
"goodness," Ps.
14''
';
"prosperity," Ps.
6810.
In the Ps.
Sol. {s^^-
Rom.
9';
3l6
2
GALATIANS
Clem.
2*
155,
etc.).
This
is
also
the
312,
constant
meaning
in
N. T.
(Rom.
II"
etc.),
except in
first in
Rom.
the
14'.
'AyaewauvTj appears
Lxx
"goodness," "righteousness" (Ps. 38" 52'), "prosperity" (Eccl. s^- "> etc.) and "kindness" (Judg. 8 gi" Neh. 9' ). It is not found in Ps. Sol., which use StxacoauviQ for "rightlike xp-qa-coT-qq signifying
xp-qj-vdzriq,
it
sXsoq,
and
eXsTQtxoauvTj
"mercy."
5' 2
In N. T.
(Rom.
i5'<
Eph.
is
"goodness."
Ltft.'s distinction
between
xp-qo'zoTrjq
and iya6wa6v7),
more
active, differing
would naturally explain the occurrence and at this point, but is unsustained by any other evidence. It seems necessary to choose between taking it in the wholly general sense of "goodness," and making it entirely synonymous with xp-f}a'z6zriq, "kindness." The few other instances of the word in N. T. and the improbability that the apostle would exactly repeat in
from
benevolentia,
of the
word
in this series
dcy.
xPf]^"^-,
meaning
less
fol-
"goodness," even though by this interpretation the word refers distinctly to conduct towards others than either the preceding or
lowing term.
Ili(jziq is
evidently not employed here as in chap. 3 to denote that is the fundamental element of religion,
v. of this chapter, to
committal of one's
is
self to
him
life
for
message concerning Jesus and the salvation. For faith as there used
of one
who
lives
by the
Spirit
(cf.
220
5,
4 of the relation
here
spoken of
God
in the soul.
It
is,
therefore,
or (b) "faith" in the specific form of belief in the power and willing-
work through men, as in Rom. 12'- " i Cor. 12' 13". But words in this group refer to matters of distinctly ethical and religious character, and there is nothing in this context to suggest a reference to that specific form of faith that enables one to work
ness of
to
God
miracles (which, indeed, Paul classifies rather with the xapt'cExaTa than
of), it is practically
men. So Bengel (constantia, fidelitas), Segond (fidelite). The suggestion of Alf. "faith towards God and man," and that of Ell., "trustfulness, faith in God's promises and mercies and loving trust towards men," find no
cially in relation to one's fellow
On
on
Ili<ziiq
and
ITtaTeuco, p. 475.
V,
TipaoxTjq, of
22-23
317
which xpauTig^ is a later form of identical meaning, is used by Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle, Polybius and Plutarch. It signifies in Greek writers, "mildness," "gentleness in dealing with
others": Plato, Rep. 558A; Symp. 197D.; Aristot. Rhet.
Plut. Frat.
xa-Ksivoq,
2. 31 (1380 aO; Unlike am. 18; see more fully in Cremer, on xpauq. which was frequently if not usually a term of reproach,
icpadxTjc;
::paij<;
In the
Lxx
usually a translation of
is
ir;
(only rarely of
'y'_),
which
signifies
"one who
humble
in disposition
is
"meek" might
See
suggest,
submitting
v.;
BDB,
5.
Driver,
"Poor"
"^y;^
in
HDB,
Paterson, article
"Poor"
in Encyc. Bib.,
and Gray, Com. on Numbers, at 12'. In a few passages the Lxx translate by icpauq and in one of these, Zech. 9', evidently use it m the meaning "gentle," "considerate." The use of xpaijTTjc; in the
Lxx
little light,
it is
used both of
45^)
God"
(Sir.
i"
and
of
men"
and
in Sir. 10=8
may
manifest
also the
itself
man
(cf.
Ps. 45*).
In Patr. Ap.
(Clem.
word regularly
signifies gentleness
4.^,
towards
men
Rom.
men in Ep. ad Diogn. 7* is quite exceptional). In N. T. Kpauq occurs in Mt. 11" 21^ (the latter from Zech. 9'), meaning "gen-
tle," "considerate"; in Mt. 5^ (from Ps. S7^^) probably with the same meaning as in O. T., "submissive to God's will"; in i Pet. 3^, meaning "gentle," "modest." xpauxiQ; in Jas. 1=' is used of an attitude towards God, "teachableness," "submissiveness to his will"; elsewhere of a relation to men (i Cor. 4" 2 Cor. 10' Gal. 6' Eph. 4' Col. 3" 2 Tim. 2^5 Tit. 3^ Jas. 3I' i Pet. 31^), and signifies " consider ateness," "gentleness." Among N. T. writers, therefore, only James and to a limited extent Mt. show the influence of the Hebrew \j>^, all the
word.
If the
writers of
common Greek meaning of the two ideas were blended into one in the usage of the the N. T. period, that thought must have been, negatively,
men
and consideration of others: towards God, submissiveness, towards considerateness and gentleness. But it is doubtful whether the word did not rather stand for two similar but distinct ideas, and in Paul's mind for the idea of gentleness (tov/ards men) only. On xtaxtq
cf. Sir.
12. 31.
so far as observed, in
who
uses
it
390B, and
3i8
JjSovcJv
T'.vtov
-/.al
GALATIANS
xcOuti.t(Jv
eyxpccTstx,
Rep.
430E.
The
adjective
lyxpaTTQc;,
Xenophon (under
Mem.
etc.
Neither
eyx.paTT](;
nor
eyy.pdcTsia
the adjective in the sense "having mastery, possession of" (Tob. 6'
Wisd.
(Sir.
S'^i
Sir.
6"
15' 2 75"),
(Sir.
26");
18"
18'",
where
it
stands as a
title
one's lusts,
ext6u[xtat,
4 Mac. 5").
I
The
adjective occurs in
N. T.
The verb
sYxpaTsuo^ai
limited
is
used in
g^',
by
xdvxa, with
In Patr. Ap.
See esp. Herm.
^iyzxat.
any
8'':
oq dv
oi3v
sv
xf^
xovT^poiv epytov
dcp^^srat, xtaxeucov
Stt
edv
dt^i^TjTat
xdaTQq IxiOu'^tai;
xovigpa?
x.7^Tjpovou.T)cet
^wi^v
aJwvtov.
Usage
thus indicates that eyxpdcTsca, signifying prop, "control," "mastery," acquired the meaning "self-control," "mastery of one's own desires and impulses," but without specific reference to any particular class of such desires. The position of the word here corresponding to that of [xsOtq, /.io[xot in the list of the works of the flesh, suggests a special reference in this case to control of the appetite for drink and of the consequent tendency to unrestrained and immodest hilarity. But
this parallelism does
form of
self control.
Kara
there
is
no law."
is
apostle's
The mild
assertion
no law against such things has the effect of an emphatic assertion that these things fully meet the requirements of the law {cf. v.^*). The statement as it stands is true of law in every sense of the word, and w/xo? is therefore to be
that there
is
thinking
human
law.
onNdAio?,V2
article
(b),p.
456,butc/.V4,p.459.
The absence
of the
V,
there
is
23-^4
319
any law against such things. This would have been by the words ea-riv ovBeU voixo^ {cf.
Cor. 6^
it is
tence not to use an emphatic form. Cf. Rom. 2^^ 322. On Kara, "against," see on v.^^ tmv Toiovroyv is probably generic, de-
denoted by ra TocavTa
Cf.
on that
v.
24.
ol
be
Tov
')(^piaTov
earavpayaav
<tvv
Tol<i Tra6rjiJ,a<TLV
have
and
its desires."
rod
;)^pto-roO Tr/doi) is
who are and who walk by the Spirit (v.") and are led in Christ Jesus by the Spirit (v.^^; cf. Rom. 8^. 10). rrjv ddpaa has the same meaning as the crdp^ of vv.^^- ^^^ ", the force in men that makes
(cf. 3^9 I
Cor.
3-3
152^),
ol
(v.<^),
for evil,
and iaravpojaav
to the
an end
dominion
Rom.
60. the completeness of the extermination of this evil force, in that not only its outward fruits are destroyed, but its very dispo.
The addition of
rot?
eiriBvp^Lai^i
emphasises
sitions
and
desires
put to death.
Combined with
v.23 to
which
it is joined by 6e continuative, the sentence conveys the assurance that they who are of Christ Jesus, who live by the
Spirit, will
not
fail
and the
deeds of the
they will
which shut one out of the kingdom of God, not do, the flesh and its desires being put to death.
flesh,
tou xg\cio\J 'IyjjoG (found elsewhere only
not to be regarded as the compound XotaTou 'ItqjoG with the article prefixed, there being no previous instance nearer than v. of Xp'.JToq 'iT^joGq alone, to which the demonstrative article might
Eph.
3) is
refer; it
is,
ttoj
xQ^q-zo'j,
'iTjcroG
in
probably otherwise in Eph. 3', the reference there being to the closely preceding z"". See detached Note on Titles and On the omission of 'iTjaoG by some Western Predicates of Jesus, III 3.
apposition.
authorities, see textual note
on 2>^
all
The
who
320
On
is
GALATIANS
is best translated by the English perthe use of the word, see note on axaupoq and aiaupooi, 31. The used figuratively in N. T. here and in 6^* only; but cf. 2':
verb
Xptaxo) auvsaTocupw^Aat.
Col. 35
:
Rom.
to:
6: b
xaXaioq
tj[jl(I)v
avOpcoxoq auveaTaupwB-rj.
xopvdxv, etc. The choice of axaupoo) in preference to other verbs signif>ang "to put to death " suggests that it is the death of Jesus on the cross which has impelled us to slay the power within us that makes for unrighteous[liX-q
vsxpwaars ouv
xa sxl T^q
yi^q,
ness.
Cf.
different use
Rom. 6-ii and the notes on 2^, where, however, a somewhat is made of the figure of crucifixion.
The
the meaning of xaGTjtxaaiv, see below, and on iTzSw^ianq, see v.". with both words is restrictive, and serves to mark the xaeT3[i.a and ext8u[jLta as those of the axp^ just spoken of above; for
article
On
these words are in themselves of neutral significance morally, and it could not be said of the dispositions and desires generally that they that are Christ's have put them to death. On this use of the article,
N.
where the English would require a possessive, which is rather rare in T., see Kuhner-Gerth, 461. 2; G. 949; Butt. 127. 26; Mt. 17" Gal. 6 (ih y.Qcuxri[i.c and tov exspov), and the exx. of xbv xXtjjl'ov there cited.
UiQ-qiix (xaaxw) occurs in classical writers
Its
from Soph, down, usually meanings are: (a) "an experience in which one is passive, rather than active," distinguished therefore from xot-r^txa and epyov: Plato, Soph. 248C; or "experience" in general without emphasis on the element of passivity: Hdt. i^": xa U t^-ot izocQ-qiix-zoc eovxa
in the plural.
my unpleasant experiences that I have learned"; so, probably, also, in Plato, Rep. 51 iD. (b) "a painful experience, a misfortune, disaster": Soph. 0. C. 361; Thuc.4. 48';
dx^iptxa [iccQri'^anx yeyovs: "It is through
439D.
(c)
"a
disposition,
tendency, or characteristic, in which the person himself is passive," so in contrast with (xdOTj^a: Xen. Cyr. 3. i": xaOTQaa apa x^q tJ^ux'Os au liyeiq
elvat
a(09poCTuvTQv, tojxep
is
sobriety (discretion)
Xuxirjv, ou [i&QriJ.a: "You maintain then that a passive quality of the soul, like grief, not a
Then, also, v/ithout special emphasis on the element of passivity; hence "disposition," "propensity," "impulse."
The
(d)
22i
bodies,
"magnitude,"
i. 2^
"incident," "property,"
(982 bi).
and
no certain difference of meaning {Index Arist. 554 a^* sqq.; they are apparently synonymous in Eth. Eud. 2' [1221]); while Bernays, Arisioteles iiher
Wirkimg
rMoq
is
and denotes an emotion unexpectedly breaking forth and passing away; xaOTjixa, on the other hand, is
is xiaxf^''',
who
V,
the condition of one
24-25
321
who is xaOYjtixo^, and denotes an inherent quality which is liable at any time to manifest itself; in short, that xa6o<; is an emotion (passion), xc5:6T]pia a disposition.
Down
morally.
to Aristotle, at least,
%6L'd-{]-^oL
= xa6T][ji,aTa
[1449
in Eth.
End.
2'
[1220/.]).
and
96^0!;
Nic.
2' (4)
and with-
evil.
signifies
xaOoq occurs in Job 30" Prov. 255" It is frequent in 4 Mac, where "feeling," "emotion," of which the writer (under Stoic
and
pain (i"), and under which he includes desire and joy, fear and sorrow,
excitement
(0u;x6q),
tiousness, gluttony
sexual desire
(2^),
71"),
life
and
cf.
preceding context,
love of brothers one for another (141) and of a mother for her children
(i5<' ").
it is
but to control
{3-"% etfreq.).
there-
xaGoq
is for this
The three N. T. instances of xdOoq (Rom. i^s Col. 3^ i Thes. 4^) seem to indicate that for Paul xaOoq signified passion in a bad sense, and especially perhaps sensual passion, for, though always shown by
the context to refer to gross sensual passion, in only one case
is it felt
In N. T.
xaO-rj^a is
S^* 2
Cor.
i^,
etc.)
and
of others;
two passages in which it occurs Smyrn. 5^ In Rom. 7^, xa. xa0-^[i.cjTa Twv dpLapx'.cov Tcc Std; toG vo^jlou, and the present passage, the meaning is evidently akin to the meaning (c) in classical usage. Nor is there any clear evidence that warrants us in going beyond the Aristotelian meaning. Apparently xd0Tf)iJLa means for Paul " disposition," or "propensity," rather than an outbreak of feeling, and is in itself morally neutral; the moral quality being in Rom. 7'^ expressed by twv daapTtdiv and here by the article, which has the efi:ect of an added tyj; aapxoq. Ths words xdGiQixa and xdOoq are therefore further apart in N. T. than in earlier Greek, possibly under the influence of the honourable use of x3:0T];j.a in reference to the sufferings of Christ and his fellow men.
this is also the
and
meaning
in the only
Rom.
2';
Ign.
25.
live
el
^(Ofxev
"If
we
by the
Spirit,
by the
The
condi-
22 2
GALATIANS
presumably a
reality.
The apos-
by the Spirit, and tle assumes that they live or intend to live phrase exhorts them to make this manifest in conduct. The
which he has not previously used, he nevertheless assumes will be understood by his readers and taken as sub(w.^^- '^\ cf. stantially synonymous with those already employed
^rjp TvevfjLaTL,
v.^
I
and
220).
The thought
same
expressed by
^o^ixev irvtvixari is
sub-
stantially the
'XpicfTo^i
as that of
e/ioi Ti? e^
Xpicrrd?, irvev^a
and
being for the apostle synonymous from the point of t^v^vview of experience. See on 4'- Of the three expressions, irvevimTL dyeade of v.^^ and T^M^^ juart TreptTraretre of v.^^
conirvevixari here, the first emphasises conduct, the second vital spiriof will to the Spirit's leading, and the third formity
tual fellowship, mystical union.
in
first-named, such fellowship, he bases on it an exhortation to the by the word aroix^^ixev (see conduct, expressing this, however, should below) instead of using TTepnraTelv as in v.^^ That he who live by the Spirit to do the things which it is exhort men
life
by the
Spirit to
produce
{cf. vv.^^s-)
is
combines not uncharacteristic of the apostle, who constantly product of a divine force the conception of morality as the
working
in
men
Cj. Phil.
i^^. 13
human Rom.
will as
6^-^
a neces6122-.
and
On
xvEu^JLccTi cf.
on
is
v.^^;
the dative
is
a dative of means.
The noun
being anarthrous
There is much difference of opinion of walking on the question whether aTocxwixsv, conveying the figure in in a row, refers chiefly to external conduct {cf. xsptTcaTsTxe in v.^O having with inner life, t;o)ti.v (so Philippi, Ell. Ltft. Sief.), or
qualitative.
contrast
as
its
ment
that
(so
cal evidence is
QTotx^iv
conformity, agreebasal meaning "to stand in a row," refers to Dalmer and Cremer, following Buddeus). The lexicographihardly decisive, but the N. T. exx. favour the view
sometimes, at
least,
suggested
and meant "to act accordBut in chap. a standard," "to behave properly" (Acts 21"). ing to to," 6> Phil. 3'" either this meaning, or the meaning "to conform "to walk would be suitable. For the present passage this meaning, (rightly)," is distinctly more (in a straight line)," "to conduct one's self
(Rom. 41^ or
who claim
V,
to live
25-26
by conduct
i
323
controlled
by the
Spirit.
by the
3U
The thought
is
similar to that of
26.
M^
Xot? (j)6ovovvTe?.
without
connective,
negatively one
positively expressed
Walking by the Spirit, let us not put and thus, on the one side, provoke or challenge our fellows to do things they hesitate to do, or, on the other, envy^ our fellows who dare to do what we do not venture to do. The two parts of the exhortation doubtless have reference to two classes in the churches of the Galatians. Those who fancied that they had attained unto freedom and were in danger of converting their freedom into an occasion to the flesh (v.^^), whose KevoBo^ia took the form of pride in their fancied possession of liberty to act without restraint, would be tempted to challenge (irpoKoKeladai) their more timid or more scrupulous brethren, saying, e. g., "We dare do these things that the law forbids; are you afraid to do them?" On the other hand, the more scrupulous would, while not quite daring to follow in the footsteps of these, yet be tempted to
on
things,
and
to look at
them with
env}^,
the
same
freedomx.
situation
more
where the
who with
conceit of knowl-
set forth in
Rom., chap.
is
14,
not as here,
that one challenges and the other envies, but that one despises and the other judges. As in those cases the apostle prescribes
by
is
love, joy,
peace, etc.
324
The
GALATIANS
relation of this verse to
to
what follows
is
Yet it is the former conand the greater paragraph division should be made, not as in WH., Stage, Zahn, between vv.^* and , or as in Mey. Weizs. Stapfer, between vv." and ^o, but at the end of the chapter,
nection that
is
as in AV. Tdf. Ell. Ltft. Segond, Sief. both her2 and at the beginning of v. ^^
a paragraph
The
attested by
al. pier.
Dam.
On
The
that
it
so contrary to
known usage
must be supposed
with
3',
dXai;tov,
then in this
yfvou
and xevoSo^ew) is a word of where it is associated passage, the only N. T. instance, and in Did.
or
xv68o^o(;
exstBYj
is
where to be
t^ou,
[i-q^k
\j.ii
(pcXdpyupoc;
said
to
lead to theft:
tIxvov
xXoxTQV,
(];eucrTiQq,
65irjYt
ex.
xh
Yctp
t]jeuaiJ,a
dq
T-f)v
<pi\(kpyupQq
[xtjBe
v-ewZo^oq'
toutwv
in
axdvxwv
Polyb.
xXoxal
3. 81';
yeyvibvzoci.
xsvoBo^t'a
is
Wisd. 14"; 4 Mac. 2" 8. '*; Philo, Mut. nom. 96 (15); Leg. ad Gaium, 114 (16); Phil. 2; Clem. Rom. 35^; Ign. Philad. ii; Magn.
II'; Herm. Mand. 8'; Sim. Zahn, following Wetstein),
8. 9';
(pt.'kozi[i.Uq
xevoBo^tav.
is
Suidas defines
it
as
this definition is not quite comprehensive enough. the adjective are evidently closely related in meaning,
and xsvoSo^oq means "glorying in vain things," "setting value on things not really valuable," whether possessed, or supposed to be possessed, or desired. It is the almost exact antithesis of ato^pcov and
CTa)(ppovt5v,
their true
which mean "seeing things as they are, estimating them at value" (cf. Rom. 12'). The English word "vain" expresses
commonly used
refers
more
and
"Vain-minded,"
if
we might
rXpoxaXio),
in the
Lxx, Ps. Sol. or Patr. Ap., Mac. 8", and here only in
It is evidently
N.
* The verb KevoSo^eut seems to have taken on a somewhat more general meaning than the noun or the adjective, signifying to hold a baseless opinion (of any kind) See 4 Mac. 5' 8"; Mar. Pol. 10'.
.
V,
used here in the meaning
"to challenge."
4>0ov(i),
26-vi, common
325
Lxx, and
classical
in the Apocr. in
Tob.
4'. i
only, not in Ps. Sol., in Patr. Ap. 2 Clem. 15^ only, here only
in
Cf.
(c)
who
fall,
and
to bear
(6^-^).
Mindful
of the
all
those
who purpose
to live
by the
Spirit will
injunction of
to restore
bearing,
52^ an exhortation to those who live by the Spirit any who fall, adds exhortations to mutual burdenand reminds them that each man has a burden of his
own.
^Brethren, if a
man
do ye who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, ^Bear ye one another's considering thyself lest thou also be tempted.
burdens, and so fulfil the law of the Christ.
eth himself to be something,
self.
when he
is nothing, he deceiveth
him-
'^And
let
every
man
prove his
then shall he
respect
himself,
and not in
^For each
man
own burden.
1. 'ABe\(j)OL,
eav koI
rpoXrjiJicj^dr]
aeavrou,
Kal av TeLpaadrj<;.
"Brethren,
man
who
is
thought of chap.
may
nevertheless
the
has.
fall
into sin,
an outsider but
to a
member
of the Christian
community.
326
GALATIANS
Zahn, following Hofmann, connects dSsX^ot with 5", So also Ws. 533X901 at the end of a sentence is not impossible (see v.i') and at the
very beginning of a sentence
is
rather infrequent
(3 15
14"
Phil. 313),
mon than either (i>i 4'= 5", etfreq.). But a position at the end of such a sentence as S'^ remote from any pronoun referring to the persons addressed {cf. 6i; Phm.^; also Gal. 412), and after a series of distinct
extremely awkward, and unparalleled in Paul. It is safe if dSsXcpof had been intended to form a part of v.= it would have stood before SclX-qXouq, and that standing where it does it must be taken with what follows it, as in s'' and other examples above. 'E&y (or eI) xai may be used either (a) to introduce a concessive clause
phrases,
is
to affirm that
(2 Tim. 25, and numerous instances of el /.at), i. e., a condition unfavourable to the fulfilment of the apodosis, in spite of which the apodosis is or will be fulfilled; or (b) when a second hypothesis similar to a preced-
ing one
2
is
introduced, and
(c)
/.at
therefore
means "also";
cf.
Lk.
iii*
Cor. II"; or
when
xcxt is
on the immeis
diately following
in
Cor.
y'l. = it
ring to a condition which the apostle has in a preceding sentence said ought never to occur; its force may be reproduced in English by an
emphatic form
Cf. also
I
(if
she do depart,
Pet. 3".
The
first
use
is
is
Cor. 7"; if thou dost marry, 728). excluded in the present case by the
by
is
could be additional.
intensive force of
clause.
stitutes
The
third possibility alone remains, and the doubtless intended to apply to the whole meaning thus yielded perfectly fits the context and con-
The
is
xaf
parallel to the use of el -aolI in i Cor. y^K As there the apostle, having forbidden the wife to depart from her husband, goes on to say: but if (nevertheless) she do depart (sav Be xal
Xwpca0f)); so here,
(aroix^tv xvcu;j.aTO
an almost perfect
and
in 526
injunctions, he
fail
now
to
obey
nevertheless
shall never-
walk by the Spirit and be overtaken in a fault, it is for those who have obeyed the injunction (xveuii-axcxof = aTotxo!JvT<; xvU[xaTt) to restore such a one." npoXafx^avo), used by classical writers from Sophocles down in a
variety of meanings, does not occur in the Lxx, and in Apocr.
is
found
antici-
v. I.
in i7>i.
et
In the latter
it
means "to
. .
In
17'^,
le
yap yewpybc; ^v
cf.
ziq
xpoXTjixipGelq
e'txevev
Y.cd
dxpoaSox-^Tw
96^(0
v.>5]
ttJv
hua&Xuxiov
VI,
dtvcScyxTjv,
327
See also Jos. Bell. 5.79 (2^: 8tb
Tal<;
it
means "to overtake," "to come upon," or "to take unhowever, "to detect").
ol
awares"
v.(x\
(not,
TOTS
xpoXT](p8ivT';
'Pw^aiot
lix^oXal!;
elxov
(cited
by
where the passive clearly means "to be taken by surprise." In N. T. it occurs in i Cor. ii^S where it means "to take beforehand"; Ign. in Mk. I4S where it means "to anticipate, to forestall" {cf. also Eph. 3=, the only instance in Patr. Ap.); and in the present passage, for which no meaning is so probable as that which is vouched for Wisd.
Sief.),
the word "overtake" be employed in translation it " should be understood in that sense. The meaning to detect, to dis(so Sief.)*
If
not an improbable derivative from the meaning "to take by surprise," is not required by this is not attested by any observed instance and When with this interpretation of xpo>.. is combined the view context.
that
y.a(
throws
its
even detected in a
with the context.
emphasis on x?oX., giving the meaning, "If one be a thought wholly inharmonious
See above on
IlapaxTwiia, a late
fall
by Polybius,
sense,
in
whom
"a
false step,
a blunder,"
Lxx
for various
words
used
force in Apocr.
In N. T.
it is
and
in the Pauline
Rom. 4"
5'*-
", etc.
Between
biblical
there seems
except that in the biblical writers it has a more strictly ethical sense. The exx. in Paul show that the word retained for him the suggestion of its etymological sense, "a falling
little difference,
esp.Rom.
ii"-
1^),
and
it is,
therefore,
probable that in the present passage there is an intended antithesis Iv is to aTotx'iuLEv "walk in a straight line, conform to a standard." Cf. figuratively spatial, meaning "in the midst of," "in the act of,"
I
Thes.
22
and Th.
s. v. I. 5.
01
%vE\j[L(x'ziy.oi
who
in obedience to the
Spirit, as against
xfiq
instructions of
vv.i^-''*,
by the
Spirit,
walk by the
0)q
still
aapxoq
Cor.
3*:
oux.
T)Buvri9T3V
XalriaM
xvU[AaTixotq <iXk'
wq
aapxtvotq), or as against
v6[JLov (cf.
4.i).
On
both the latter and those who are living uxb xveu^JLaTtxoq in general, see Th. s. v. and Burton,
p. 204.
Spirit, Soul,
classical authors
The passages cited for the meaning "to overtake" (as of one pursuing a fugitive) by Sic. Meyer, do not show it. Xen. Cyr. 5. 19; 7- 7; Theophr. H. pi. 8. i'; Polyb. 31. 23'; Diod. outdistance" (used of the pursued, not 17. 73 all show the meaning "to get the start of," "to
Tn Strabo 16. of the pursuer) quite the opposite of "overtake." 11". seize beforehand" or possibly "to anticipate," as in i Cor.
4"
fin. the
meaning
is
" to
328
GALATIANS
not infrequently in the Lxx, Apocr., and Patr. Ap., has in general three meanings: (i) "to repair," "to restore" (to a former good condition): Mk. I''; (2) "to prepare/' "to fit out": Heb. lo-': (3) "to perfect'-
Heb.
132'.
On
Here evidently used in the first sense, ethically understood. man, being such), cj. on toc TotaOxa, 521.
ev xveuixaTc xpauTYjToq
Of the phrase
ble: (a) xveutxa
may
refer to the
Holy
is
Spirit qualitatively
in vv.>'
'8.
26.
ing
the effect of
8>0,
the presence of
the Spirit
and ev marks its object as the sphere in which the action takes place and by which its character is determined, as in i Thes. i' I Cor. 123 etfreq. Cf. 4", and note that xpatjxiQq is named in 5" among those qualities which are the fruit of the Spirit. Observe, also, the
those
Rom.
connection in that case with xveutAaxcxof, the intimation being that who possess the Spirit shall by virtue of that possession and the
it
gentleness which
may
denote a
human
characterised
by
gentleness,
xpauTTjroq
being a genitive of characteristic, and Iv marking its object as that with which one is furnished and under the influence of which the action
takes place.
ev pi:pS(p
See
Rom.
u[xa<;
7^, ev xatvoTTQxt
tj
Cor. 4":
eXOw xpbq
ev dyaxiQ
xve6[xaxt
is
xe xpauxTjxoq; in
view
the
which
probably to be preferred.
On
meaning
of xpauxrjxoq, see
on 5".
The emphasis
is
"to observe,"
is
and by Paul
in
Rom.
object in the accusative and in the sense "to consider," "to observe," "to give heed to"; for what purpose, whether to avoid, or to promote,
or to honour,
lies
Mac.
4^;
Clem.
Rom.
to
sii;
Mar. Pol.
The change
dBeX(po{,
common
^
may
be
(a)
ceauxdv (Butt. p. 242), or (b) an object clause after oxoxdiv as a verb of effort (BAfr 206), aeauxdv being in that case proleptic and pleonastic
(see
I
Cor.
161*),
or
(c)
a clause of
225).
fear,
plied in thought
most probable, for it is against (a) that the purpose of ctxoxwv as here referred to is manifestly
last is the
{^MT
The
not so
much
one considPaul
who do
so fall;
and against
(b) that
<TKo%iixi,
not as a verb of
effort,
but in the
VI,
nctpdi;o)
1-2
329
try," "to test,"
(from
Homer down;
in Patr. Ap.),
and occasionally
in whatever so in the
way
Lxx or Apocr.)
Satan, 6
"to
i
solicit to
the
title of
xtpd:t;wv:
Mt.
4'
Thes.
it
3=; cf.
So in
Cor.
7^,
and
which
is
feared
is
it.
likely to result
from
2.
'AXXtJXw;^
Ta
/3dp7]
and so
clearly
The
reference of
ra ^dprj
is
to that especially
which
is
spoken
and
This burprin-
Yet the
aK\rj\o)v
makes
it
emphatic.
On
tached note NoVos, V. 2. (d), p. 459. On tov ^pto-roi), see detached note on The Titles and Predicates of Jesus, p. 395, and concluding discussion under B, p. 398. See also i^ Col. 3^^. By " the law of the Christ" Paul undoubtedly means the law of God
as enunciated
by
Acts
133^) is
the law
God
as put forth
use of the
official
term tov
'x^piarov in preference to
suggested.
of the
law put forth by the Christ as consisting not in a body of but in the central and all-inclusive principle of love;
statutes,
his present reference to that law he had in mind its content, or thought simply of the law of God set forth by the Christ, can not be decided wath certainty. Whether he is here thinking of this law as having been promulgated by Jesus while on earth and known to him, Paul, through the
though whether in
medium
of those
who
communicated through
decisive indication.
case, this is
If,
no wholly
is
the
330
GALATIANS
him through the Twelve
41^-1^
companions.
Cf.
(?)
5^(?).
WH.
^ACDKLNP
al. pier.
Syr. (hard.)
Arm. Clem. Bas. Ephr. Didym. Ath. Chr, Euthal. Thdrt. Dam. Following BFG d f g Vg. Syr. (psh.) Boh. Eth. Goth. Procl. Marc.
Thdrt. cod. Tert. Gyp. Victorin. Hier. Aug. Ambrst. Neither external nor internal evidence dvaTr>.T3?o[)jTe.
the preponderance of the latter seems in favour of
al.
is
Tdf. adopts
decisive,
but
aaxe.
The
fut. is
The words
later Greek.
literally
common, both
in classical
and
and metaphorically; in N. T. always metaphorically, and what is desirable (2 Cor. 41'), or of what is hard to be borne (Acts 15" Rev. 2-0. the context alone indicating the specific nature On ^aax^^w, see on $'" The reference of that which is referred to. here is evidently not simply to endurance (enforced and reluctant, as in s^o), but to a willing, helpful, sympathetic sharing of the burden
either of
(cf.
Rom.
151),
etc., lying,
however, in the
used
found
in classical writers
is
T. as a somewhat stronger term for -itX-npow, both Here, evidently, literally and tropical'y. Cf. note on xAiQpoto, 5>*. with a force similar to that in Mt. 131*, it means "to satisfy the requirein the
Lxx and N.
ments
Voc.
of."
V.
See ex. of
its
M. and M.
meaning "in this way, by the conduct just enjoined," cf. Mt. 3'^ But there must be supplied in thought some such expression as "in the matter of another's burden," since mutual burden-bearing is evidently not the full content of the law of the
s.
On
ouTwc,
Christ.
3. l
<yap
8oKL
Tt?
elvat tl
jj-rjoev
wv^ (fipevairara
eavrov
"For
if
and imphes that conceit, thinking one's self to be something more than one really is, tends to make one unwilling Conceiving ourselves to have no to share another's burden.
/3acrra^r,
faults,
refuse
we have no sympathy with those who have faults and to make their shortcomings any concern of ours.
VI,
2-3
on
2..
331
Of the two meanings On the expression v/ith which usage shows the expression to have been used, the context makes it evident that it bears one in 2^ and the other here, meaning
ooxsTv elvai tc, cf.
there "to be esteemed of importance (by others)," here "to esteem one's
self to
be of importance."
elvat,
of (ppsva-xaTi? sauTov.
tc, cf.
On
Ictv
Soxtojt Tt
The
participle
wv
etc.,
is
concessive,
adverse to Boxsl,
equivalent to
[XYjBsv
kail.
ticipial
[jLTjoev
8oxet xiq
elvat xi
xal
which the combination of the two elements is causalOn the combination of causal and concessive conditional conditional. elements, see comment on i^. In such cases [atq is the regular negative, both in classical and later Greek. 'QMT 485. Against the connection
ecTTt,
of wv,
a,s
negative
\iA]
a causal participle, with the apodosis (ppsvaxaTqc (Zahn) the is not decisive, but the implied affirmation that no man is
anything and that any man who thinks himself to be something deceives himself, imports into the sentence a harshness of judgment that
is
Cf.
esp.
Rom.
i2=ff-
Phil. 2^^-.
first
cE>pvaxaTci(o
N. T.
It is not
&
S.)
and Byzant, writers (Th.). ippsvaxaTTji; is found in Tit. i'", [xaTatoXdyot xal cppcvaxa-rac, "vain talkers and deceivers," which is quoted in the longer recension of Ign. Trail. 6. This noun appears
and
eccles.
also in a
papyrus (Grenfell,
An
1896, p. 2) said
of
by
is
the passage
word
^psvaxaTiQq applied
The Greek by a
woman
ceited."
seems clearly to mean "deceiver," not as "one who deceives his own mind," "con-
The noun
as
is
On
such
Jas.
i-, axa-roiv
xapSc'av eauxou
an;',
compounds
stealing,
c^^zvo9>zk-{i\q
(heart-charming).
cppsvoxXoxo^t
i.hcart-
deceiving),
vo^oStSczaxxXoq,
eTcpoBtoaaxaXeiv,
etSwXoXaxpta,
by Bl.-D. 119. 2), which indicate that it means to deceive the mind, and that it differs from aizczoibi in that it is more intensive, as dxc.xi^v xapBc'itv lauxoO is a stronger expression for
TauTa
* (Tvvoii-qyov
exw to
ttoKv irvp to ev
TJj
ravra.
(/xi^u.ei'o?
/u.e
aSixei,
fj.e
h^vvd o
aiTtai'
4'P^vaTraTYi'; 6 irp'o
Tov
jue'ya 4>f>ovMV,
,
XCav
rriv
(or Trairw;')
TV\ovcTay
aSLKLavt <^pei'o/3Aa/3j}s,
exceptionally
(ftpriv is
standing, insane."
332
the verb as
4.
GALATIANS
self-deception tharx dxa-rdiv sauTov.
itself reflexive in
There
it is
is
that
TO
be
epyov eavTov
Kav')(T)iia
boKijia^eroi
e^ei kol ovk
koI
Tore
et?
iavTov jiovov to
let
top erepov^
"And
every
man
ground
it
his fellow."
not to
V.3 (ovv
would
v.^, or,
in that case
particle),
but to
better, to vv.^-
The
self-deceived
man may
fault,
man who
own
real condition.
He has
and
Cf.
in reality
his shortcomings.
of glorying,
7^-\
ground
But the man who tests himself has his whatever that be, in respect to himself.
omission by
Mt.
WH. bracket
omission
is
its
Sah.
But the
error, that
hardly justifiable.
On
Cf.
I
"what one
eflort,"
Cor.
2
s^^'^^-
N.
T., emphatic.
Cor. 135
Cor.
iqi^.
AoxtfjLaJ^o),
in the
test,"
)
in N. T., occurs in Paul in the three senses: (a) "to "to discriminate": i Thes. 2*^ 5"; (b) "to approve": Rom. 14"; "to think best": "to choose": Rom. i" (so also Jos. Ant. 2. 176 [7^]).
Lxx, and
j.Iere clearly in
the
first
sense.
^^''^-
11".
shall
when he
have tested
i
(2pa,
as in s^K
Cf.
shall
Cor.
4*.
may
be proved
good," or Tb
xauxTl^i-a
may mean
in effect, "his
ground of glorying,
whatever that be," the implication in such case being that he who examines himself will not fail to find something of good in himself.
On
zlq,
to," see
Rom. 4"
Cor. io
{cf.
vv."- 1%
where
lau-rbv
ev is
ground of boasting)
[xivov
elq Tbv Ixepov.
Ka()Xf][*-'x,
of
e(<;
at the beginning of
sentence with
its
correlative
classical
in
Ps. Sol.; in
N. T.
in
Heb.
Ap. in
VI,
3-5
333
It is
refer-
Clem. Rom. 34^ only, probably under the influence of Heb. 3*. term than the English word "boast,"
excessive or unjustified.
it is
Though sometimes
xcz6x"']at;
Cor.
1'=
and probably
in
i
in
Rom.
151O)
a-s,
51',
and probably
that
xo:6xTj[xa
Mey.
Ell.,
who maintain
naturally
Rom.
The
I*
dq sauTov in preference to sv lauxcp {cf. Rom. 15^' 2 Thes. and note above on dq eauxdv) favours, indeed, the meaning "gloryuse of
ing," since slq lauxdv can, strictly speaking, limit only the element of
is involved in %a(ixr]\i'0:, "ground of gloryYet such a limitation of an element of a word of complex meaning is, of course, possible, and there is, therefore, no sufficient reason for departing from the proper sense of K(x{)xri[ia, especially as e^st also The article with xa6xTr)[xa calls for the thought, "ground of glorying." It emphasises the idea exis restrictive, "his ground of glorying." pressed by ^jLovov. He is to have, not "a ground of glorying in respect to himself," but "his (only) ground in respect to himself alone." Tbv Ixepov is understood by Ell. as meaning "the other one with whom he is contrasting himself"; and this interpretation, making the
ing."
article restrictive,
context,
138
I
is
{cf.
Lk. 11"
is*-
Jn. 1621).
Cor. 46 6^
" 14"
Phil. 2*
show
clearly that
was used
neighbour"
{cf.
the similar
On
the
Lxx
always
2"),
Mk.
in
Mk.
Mt.
151
4',
et
freq.
The two
interpretations difTer
is
only in that
the article
is
to the particular
if it is
whom
generic
is
more
e.,
any) fellow.
The usage
and
-jcXTjafov,
synonym
5.
eKaaTo<;
yap to
idiop
i^opTLOv
(3aaTci<TL.
man
own burden."
Between
(^opruov (used
"For each by
334
GALATIANS
Greek writers from Aristotle down, in the Lxx, Apocr. and N. T.; in Acts 27^ of a ship's cargo; elsewhere, Mt. 11^ 23^ Lk. 11*^ and here, figuratively of a task to be accomplished or a burden borne by the mind) and ^dpr] (v. 2) no sharp distinction can be drawn. Starting with the exhortation to bear one another's burdens (of sin), the apostle, having enforced this by
in
it
man
bidden each one test himself, now argues for the necessity of
such testing by the affirmation that every
burden,
to v.2a
It
is
i. e.,
man
has his
own
i3_
of
weakness and
sin.
The
paradoxical antithesis
Cf. Phil.
2^2.
is
the
own
that
is
On
Bl.-D. 286;
2.
MNTG 87 /.
gnomic future;
BMT 69.
to the
prin-
by
but more
first
briefly
of the churches.
Dealing
^And
let
him
that
not deceived;
God
is
not mocked:
^because he
for whatsoever a
man
own flesh
he that soweth
Spirit reap
is
life
eternal.
^And
let
'^^As therefore
all,
us do that which
is
good towards
VI,
5-
)35
taught in the word TaaiP ayadol^. "And The thought that teacheth in all good things." share with him present throughout more or less of mutual burden bearing, this v., but no more than vv '-' perhaps suggests the theme of having no direct relation to the suggests it; the subject is new, of pasCf. for a similar example of the epistle as a whole.
let
Uyov
is
tQ> KaT7)X0vvri
him that
topic
sage to a
superficial condivision of the subject, yet with Rom. 6^-. On the precedes, nection with what immediately division of the subject, see use of ae' at the beginning of a new j(,i7, 25 1 Cor. 7'' S\ The expressions KaTrjxovfievo^ Rom. 11^3 so early in the apostolic and T KarrjxovvrL, occurring in a letter evidence how furnish interesting and instructive age as this one, of the life of the an element
new
The
who
receive
m-
contribute to the support of the struction are called upon to net such teaching in all probability was teacher shows that avocation merely as a voluntary and relatively light undertaken Bible-class teacher) but (comparable to the work of a modern the work itself, if not the occupied in preparation for it and that it was necessary to teacher's whole time, yet enough so sustained. loss of income which he thus compensate him for the this verse refers. a class of paid teachers to which In short, it is
The
cf
article
is,
of
of the class;
On
12^8
Eph. 4^' i Tim. 5^^ On its existence cj I Thes. s'' I Cor. in the Primcentury, see Dobschutz, Christian Life in the second Christianity, pp. Expansion of itive Church, pp. 345/.; Harnack, on top the subject of such teaching, see below
333-366. ^oyov.
On
this verse Zahn, Tdf. Weizs. ERV. and ARV. dissociate and connect it preceding by a paragraph at this point, from the Segond put v. by itself. WH. with the following. Stage, Eous. and a half paragraph at the end of v.^ join v. with what precedes, making makes this senWeymouth a full paragraph. The last-named view a subject not closely connected with tence an appended remark on
Ell
Ltft.
336
GALATIANS
what precedes; the second isolates it both from what precedes and what follows. Neither view is so probable as that which finds the suggestion of the sentence in what precedes and its further enforcement in vv.^' . Thus interpreted, the whole passage becomes continuous and intelligible. See below on vv.'- . Kotvwvito, used by classical writers from Euripides down, in the Lxx, Apocr. N. T. and Patr. Ap., means in general "to share," i. e., "to be a partner in" (a thing) or "with" (a person). The name of the person with whom one shares is in the dative, if expressed; the thing
in the genitive, in the dative, or after a preposition.
See,
e. g.,
Plato,
Rep. 453A,
respect
Sir.
xotvtovelv Ttvi
elq
to
6
everything";
Polyb.
xotvwvslv
xivt
xepf
-rtvoq.
13':
xotvwvtbv uxpT)9dva)
is
6[JLotci)6T)aTai
auTw.
Most commonly
the emphasis
ship,
i.
e.,
the subject
chiefly receptive.
exoivtovYjaav
Thus
i
in
Rom.
15=^,
ya?
2i<
Tolq
I
xvcu;xaTtxoIq auxoiv
413 2
Ta
IOvt),
Pet.
Jn.
11.
also be emphasised, as
19':
in
Rom.
T(p
I2>',
xpeiaiq
twv dyt'wv
cou, y.a\
xotvovoOvrsq.
/.otvcov-^astq
cv
xatJiv
T(p
xXt)5i'ov
oux epsiq
ev
t'Sta
ydp
with
ev
dipOapTCj)
cf.
xotvtovof
4*.
ears,
xoctp
41^
[lakXov
Tolq
96apTot<;,
which
o'jSe[x(a
[xil
Did.
In Phil.
the verb
itself is
clearly
mutual or
exxX-rjata
u[iBlq
[xovoi.
It
is
this
referred
exclusively to
spiritual
goods, xotvwveito
would have reference to the receptive side, if to material goods, to impartation. Since it is apparently an inclusive term (see below) referring to both spiritual and material good, xotvcDvscTO) is best taken
as in Phil. 4^^ as referring to a mutual, reciprocal sharing, wherein he
Yet must be supposed that here, as also in Rom. 14'^; Phil. 4"; Barn. 19s, the emphasis is upon the impartation (of material good). See esp. the extended argument in Wies. Though taking
in
it
the verb as intransitive. Ell. Alf. Ltft. suppose the reference here to be exclusively to the element of giving. Zahn takes a similar view.
Mey, and
to
after
him
Sief.,
be referred
to.
first in
KaTTQxew occurs
(30), xaTTjx-OTac
Ik oxc,
24
N. T. Lk.
1*
Acts
i8'= 2i2'.
Rom.
Cor. 141^
et
h.l.;
in Jos.
Vit.
366 (65):
VI,
6
"I
will
337
myself inform
in later writers, Plutarch,
you
of
many
things hitherto
unknown"; and
on Lk. i^ But the simple verb Tjxew, "to sound" (intrans. and trans.), is found in Hesiod, Herodotus, Euripides, etc.; and this fact, together with the existence in the Philo passage of the meaning "to inform," which must have been developed from the literal sense "to sound down," and the use of the noun xaTTj^TQatc; in the sense of "instruction" at least as early as the third century b.
x.aTY)Xco
is
c.
make
it
probable that
much
is
The
clue
found in the use of Kaii}XQoiq, which appears in Hippocr. 28" (L. & S.) in the expression xaTTjx^^'? tStwxewv, with reference to the oral admonition of the physician to his patient (so
to its
meaning
Laert.
Cremer); and in a passage of Chrysippus (240 b. c.) preserved in Diog. VII i. 53 (89) (quoted by Wetstein on Lk. i"): StaaTpsqjscOac
Ss xb Xoyt/.bv
l^djov,
xoxs
x"f]v
[xev
Bca
xaq
xdiv
e^toOsv
xpaytxaxsidiv
xiOa-
vdxTjxaq-
xoxe Be Sta
is
/.axr]XT}(Ttv
xwv auvovxwv:
"And
if
a reason-
ing creature
astray, this
is
of external things,
ions."
means "instruction,"
ad Ait.
or "expression of
opinion."
in
XV
12 (quoted
by Cremer) Sed
:
xaxr^xTiaet,
magni
consilii est.
(a)
"to
(b)
1823
Rom.
2^^, etc.
The
primary meaning
suggest that
it
of the
word and
if
referred chiefly,
words "catechism" and "catechetical." Concerning the history of the word, especially its later ecclesiastical
Tbv
of his
>.6yov,
instruction
an accusative of content, denotes the substance of the communicated by the teacher. Paul uses 6 Xdyoq (absol.) own message in i Thes. ! Col. 4', but more commonly
it
characterises
as a message of
its
God
(i
i^^
Phil, i"),
or
It
according
is
content
(i
Cor.
2*
Cor.
519
Christian message.
struction
It
is
in
had communicated
to
them.
The elements
that
entered into this body of teaching can not be defined accurately and
exhaustively, but probably included: (a) the doctrine of a living and
true
God
Thes.
i^
Gal.
48- ^*);
(b)
of Jesus
of his teach-
and return
(i
Cor.
ii^ff.
Thes. i"
s'^-);
with
33^
GALATIANS
which was joined (c) the teaching concerning the way of salvation which had its basis in these facts (see the passages cited above) (d) the fundamental principles of Christian ethics (i Thes. 4'ff- s^). To
;
Lxx
made
more
difficult to
That the
an author-
them
is clear from the fact that his own teaching respecting the law, in particular respecting circumcision, unclean foods, and the Sabbath, was not in accordance with the statutes
Yet, on the other hand, the early acceptance of O. T. in the Christian church as sacred scripture, and the apostle's
of the O. T. law.
it and reference to it in writing to his churches makes it evident that in his own day O. T. was already an important factor in the life of most of the churches founded by him. The fact that there are no express quotations from 0. T. in I and 2 Thes. suggests the possibility that the use of O. T. in Gentile churches was due to judaising influence rather than to the apostle. Yet the evident connection between his fundamental idea of God (i Thes. 1 9) and O. T., and the favourable attitude which, despite
own
frequent use of
I" etfreq.),
(Rom.
he assumes towards 0. T.
it
in general
(cf.
Rom.
712 g, etfreq.),
and
in argu-
ment, make
having
its
probable that while his message was distinctly Christian, authority not in the book but in his interpretation of hisit
through human experience, yet he saw in 0. T. an invaluable aid to the development of religious life, and as such
torical facts as learned
commended
it
to his converts.
If,
was based on that of Paul, it contained elements derived from O. T., yet was distinctly Christian in content, including historic fact, Christian doctrine, and Christian ethics.
xdtfftv dyaBoc? is probably to be taken as referring to both spiriand material good. Cf. 1 Cor. 9" Rom. 15"; Bam. 19'; Did. 4'. For iyaOde, meaning material good, see Lk. 1218 i6; spiritual good, Mt. 1254. 58, the latter a particularly instructive example, since it refers
'Ev
tual
not precisely to good conduct but to good thoughts and words, as if it designates that which the teacher imparts.
idea of good conduct Paul usually expressed
2'o 128.
The
by the
singular ih
i-faUy (Rom.
Tb xaX6v in 5"
Phil. i).
" 133b
j^ie j6i9 j
Thes.
51^;
cf.
and
(Rom. 2M3'
Cor. 9*
The neuter
in
epya
ifocQii
Eph.
210
210,
and without
therefore,
article in
Rom.
3* only,
advantageous.
The Pauline
usage,
furnishes no decisive
VI,
sense here; and in view of the
6-S
339
usage illustrated in the
common Greek from the gospels quoted above, the word xaatv, and the inclusive, mutual sense of xotvwveo), it seems probable that the phrase is intended to cover both the spiritual good which the teacher has to impart and the material good which he is to receive. The
passages
thought
is
Rom.
goods,
who
teach
them
of that
Zahn take
it
of
Mey.
and
7.
Sief. of spiritual
good.
M^
Tr\avd(T9ey 6e6^ ov
iivKTripi^erai8.
yap eav
cFTreipoiv
GTvelprj
on
adpKa
els
eavTov
TTvevixa
K.
Tri<^
to
eK
"Be not God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth he also reap; because he that soweth to his own flesh
rov iwevp-aTOS Bepiaei
aloyviov.
With M^
ir^ai^dade
i^^)
words
in
the
by bringing
To
life
their teachers
but a
If
specific
example
of their attitude
towards
in general.
and, undervaluing
its
mind
towards those
who
them and
willingly con-
may
continue, they
be eternal
life.
* It is
same as
life.
here,
life,
340
GALATIANS
and the coni
parity in importance between the duty enjoined 2'-'' sideration appealed to to enforce it, see Phil.
Cor. ii^^-^^
Yet these verses are probably not simply for the enforcement The apostle may also have desired to bring this prinof v.^
ciple before his readers for its
own
sake.
Having
in
w.^-^
brought
narrowing the horizon from the general s^^-^S thus between hfe according to the flesh and life by the contrast broader view Spirit, he now, reversing the process, restores the with which he began.
teaching of
nXavdw, a classical word, used from Homer down in a literal sense, wander," "to go active, "to cause to wander," passive, "to the Lxx, Apocr. astray," and (b) in various figurative senses, is used in in an and N. T. both literally and figuratively, but most commonly "to deceive," intellectual and moral sense, "to turn aside from truth," (i Cor. 6 "to lead into sin." In Paul it always means "to deceive"
(a)
15";
cf. 2
Tim.
:
It is
somewhat frequent
[lou'
ol
Eph.
161
[iri
xXavaffOe, dtBsX?^
olxoyGopoi
3'.
^aatXsfav eeou
ou
x}.Tipovo[i.T)aouatv.
8>;
Philad.
though infrequent as subject nominative, 2 and textual note there), as in qualitative, emphasising the divine attributes, and
It
always (see
God
is
as divine.
This
is
is
God, because he
not
mocked.
MuxT-r)ptXw
{cf. [iuxxi]g,
of classical writers,
is
shown by a passage
nose), though not found in the extant texts in Poll. Onom. 2" to have
Menand. Incert. been used by Lysias. (xuxx-opiaixdq is also found in the Lxx, and occur in the 402. Both verb and noun are frequent in this passage only. Apocr. In N. T. the verb alone occurs and in or sense, "to turn up the nose," "to ridicule,'' taken in its usual
If
in the tropical
meaning, "to ignore" (as perhaps in Prov. 15O, it is with this addinecessary to supply " with impunity" (Ell.). But even appropriate to the context. tion the meaning thus obtained is not
That
will
of God which he of which the apostle speaks is not a ridicule an evasion of not leave unpunished, but an outwitting of God, It in fact, can not. his laws which men think to accomplish, but, metonymy (he seems necessary, therefore, to suppose here an easy evade." who is outwitted being thereby made ridiculous) for "outwit, not identical, metonymy (cited by Eisner, ad Cf. for a similar, though 19*: Scis quam se semper a nobis loc), Cicero, Ep. ad Diversos,
XV
derisum putet.
Vereor,
velit
dvri^uxxtjpfaat.
VI,
7-8
is
341
that what does not hapis
The
present
is
The
in
what
God by
ou
[xuxxTf5ptt;Tc,
dcpstXotxev (k^ioic,
xepixaxelv.
The
figure of
its results is
frequent one, occurring in Plato, Phaedr. 260C; Arist. Rhet. 3. 3* b ydp xb cKigita xapczaxwv, ouxoq xwv (1406 b, "); (c/. alsoDem. 280"'
;
(p6vxo)va'(:xto(;:
the seed
is
responsible for
what
Xll
Fat. Lev.
g.
Philo, Conf.
21 (7);
Lk.
ig^'
Note
two passages, b axetpwv is best taken as a general present participle, referring to any member of the class described by the participle. On the use of the article, cf. on xbv exepov v.'' and b xaxrixoOThough the antithesis between aap^ and xv0[xa recalls, [xevoq v..
esp. the last
probably intentionally, the same terms used antithetically in S^^'^S the words are probably not used here in precisely the same sense
as there.
Had
must have written simply dq aapxa or elq The addition of sauxou, the force of dq marking the adp^
passage, he
adgxcc.
as the end,
that unto which the action takes place (see below), not, as in s^-i', that from which the tendency to evil proceeds, and the connection
with v.\
for evil"
all
{cf.
on
5"),
is here not "that in man which makes but has reference to the body, the physical element
of
man.
Rom.
2^8 i
Cor.
5^ 2
Cor.
Eph.
sense.
where limited by a possessive genitive it has this not share his goods with the religious teacher, withholds them, it is assumed, that he may spend the more on the Thus he gratification of bodily appetites in food, drink, and the like.
215 529
Col.
I--,
He who
will
own
it.
flesh,
The
position of exuxou
the word
conveys an essential element of the thought; to seek the physical well-being of others would be an act of quite different moral quality and effect from devotion to the gratification of one's own physitself
ical desires.
The sentence
is
if
body (which is not in itself evil) rather than to those of the spirit, if he prefer the lower to the higher, such a course issues in corruption. Ltft. interprets zlq as meaning "into," thus making the aap^ the soil This is not seriously to be objected to on in which one sows seed.
the ground urged
by
Ell.
342
ev or
Itc(;
GALATIANS
for
dl
The real not precisely parallel, shows the possibility of using elq. yields. objection lies in the thought which this parabolic interpretation
own
flesh
?^
What
inter-
which a parabolic
It is evident pretation requires as the basis of the spiritual sense? consistent that the apostle is not constructing a condensed parable terms (like that of Mk. 4'), but employing individual
throughout
fore, to
ir.
in a figurative sense,
tropically.
body,
aapx-^ eauxoO: the is doubtless the same as in ek -"^v by metonymy, the bodily desires. The article may be geformer, but is more neric, the later clause widening the horizon of the (On with it. restrictive, by implication carrying an auxoO probably
or,
in use from ^schylus down, meaning "death," used also in the Lxx, Apocr. Ps. "decay," "destruction," clause in which it stands, Sol. Patr. Ap.) interpreted solely by the mean "corruption," "decay" {cf. Col. 2") perhaps
$0opa
(a classical
on word
5^^.)
would naturally
inclusive of a physical
{cf.
['])
and a moral
sense,
but prob-
141^ 2 Pet. i*; ably referring particularly to moral corruption (Wisd. 15^^ 2 Cor. 7= 11' Eph. 4")2 Clem. 6*; cf. the use of <p8ct'pio in i Cor. a Nor is it impossible that this is the apostle's meaning, for to such impossible antithesis. thought, eternal life, i;^^ a((5vioq, is not an
Yet
i Cor. is"- "), the in view of the Pauline use of cpOopd: (Rom. S"-' the antithesis of reference to the flesh in the immediate context, and it seems probable eternal life in the second member of the sentence,
that
from which,
is
Paul means that corruption and death of the body, who have not lived according to the spirit, there 6'-" 8->% esp. 13: d yap >^aTa no rising to eternal life. See Rom.
by
cpOopdcv
for those
oipxa
We
[iAXkt-ze
dtxoOvna-^scv,
e(
SI
-TuveiixaTi
xdc;
xpd^stq
tou
used in a disa^m-zoq eavaxoOxe i;^aa0e, where, to be sure, a&p^ is but Tdtq xpa^st? toO tinctly ethical, not as here in a physical sense, expressed by cicsfpov ef? aci^axoq conveys very nearly the idea here of In other words Paul here affirms that devotion x-fjv cipxa lauToG. material, bodily side of life, brings physical death
one's self to the
unrelieved
the by the Christian hope of resurrection which rests upon him that raised up Jesus from the dead.^
xvcij;xaxo<;
adipxa, ex xf]?
capx6q.
one sows
to is in form a perfect antithesis Yet xveOfxa and xve6<J.axo<; are probthe same sense. The xveOi^a unto which
own
xvsGixa,
VI,
death or the day of the Lord.
III
1
7-8
7" Rom.
Tifjv
343
i*
2, p.
490, and
rf.
Cor.
in
2"
7' S'-
'
Phil. 4''
Thes. 5".
dq
signifies, as
dq
the benefit of," and the whole expression aTOfpwv elq xh xveG[xa refers to devotion of energy and resources to the enrichment of the life of
the
spirit, in
That sauxou is not added to xveu[xa, Cf. Col. i^ as to adpxa, signifies not that zh xveu^Jta refers to the spiritual life of the whole community, but that the explicit narrowing of the reference
to the spirit of the individual would have been incongruous, suggesting a certain (spiritual) self-centredness. /. toG xvc6txaTo<; probably sig-
from the Spirit of God, which dwelling in man is the cause of and the earnest of eternal Hfe (Rom. 8" 2 Cor. 5* Eph. i"). The transition to this meaning from xveuixa referring to the human spirit, is easy because it is the human spirit as engaged in the things
nifies
resurrection,
of the Spirit of
God
{cf.
Cor.
2^*'
") to
which to xveuixa
refers
(cf.
Rom.
Zw-Jj
8i).
alwvtoi;,
first
much
phrase
in
less
Tit. i'
of
in
Greek
ol
3^ Dan.
The
12^,
earliest
appearance of this
2';7
\'D,
translating
then
^wfjv
Ps.
Sol.
I
Se
^o^oufAevot
xuptov
ivaaTTjaovxat
tifiaai
dq
a{(I)vtov.
Enoch
(Syn.
and
Giz.)
iqi":
Ittq
eXxt^ouat
i;a)-fjv
a(a>vtov,
xal
OTt
^TjasToct
lx,aaToq
auTwv
xevxaxoata.
So
doubtless
in
though these passages are not extant in Greek. Cf. also ^wt] (in classical writers from Homer down) is 2 Mac. 7^ 4 Mac. 15'. used by Paul of (a) physical life, the antithesis of death (Rom. S'*
37^ 40 ^
I
i^", etc.);
existence in the
v/hich
is
body
(i
Cor.
accompanied by auTT], meaning the period of 1519, cf. 1 Tim. 4^), in contrast with that
but more commonly
(b), as
constantly
in John, in a moral-qualitative sense, denoting "existence according to the ideal of existence for moral beings," in
righteousness,
Such
51 2
life,
possessed
41),
by God
(Col. 3';
cf.
Eph.
4'8)
Cor.
God
in Christ to the
in the
body (Rom.
is
6^ 2
Cor.
41")
and
and
its
possession (2 Cor.
Accompanied by
aEtovtoq
aJtovtoq
this
t^w^
is
characterised as "eternal."
appears
first
in
Plato,
TjyTicaixevot
xdiXXiaxov
dpsTTJq
^taObv
aftovcov,
"esteeming
per-
904A), being clearly associated with alwv, signifying 38C; Legg. an indefinitely long period {cf. detached note on A(cov, p. 431); see esp.
344
GALATIANS
Tim. 37, 38C. As used in later Greek and in particular in the Lxx, Apocr. Ps. Sol. N. T., and Patr. Ap., it retains this sense and association with alCi-'^ in the sense just referred to. The supposition that it
means
''aeonian,"
i
i. e.,
is
insufficiently
supported by
definitely disproved
by the evidence
as a whole; as
Commentary on
tual."
John
(i^)
that
it
may
9.
TO he KoKov TTOiovvres
1X7]
iirj
evKaKMixev^ Kaipw
yap
ihiO) OepL-
aoixev
eKKvoiievoL.
''And
let
which
is
we
shall reap,
if
we
faint not."
The thought
efforts,
e.,
of obtaining result
from one's
verses
and
forms the link of connection between the preceding this, in which, nevertheless, the apostle passes still
the thought that vv.^
further
away from
were introduced to
enforce (viz., the support of teachers), to speak of persistence in well-doing in general and its reward. On to koKov as a
(it is
scarcely used at
7^8. 21^
all
in
cj.
N. T. in an aesthetic sense), see i Thes. 5^1 Rom. on eV TTaaiv ay adds v.^, and on to ayadov, y}^.
,
^nd
As
between
31, 33,
the
two
is
readings
evxa/.d)tJi.ev
(or
syxoxtotAev)
and
undoubtedly the
original.
pier,
is
B*D*
read evx.
AB'
CD^KLP
al.
which read
exx.
(FG
xxaxTQj(o;jLev).
There
no
came
the existence in N. T. times of the word exxaxlw, which apparently into N. T. mss. from the usage of a later time.
'Evxaxito (from which Ixxaxlo) apparently differs in form, but not
in meaning; see Tdf. Ed. viii maj. 2 Cor. 41) appears first in Polybius
and belongs,
language.
A p.
Paidus, p. 32.
Cor.
g^,
4'. is
It is not
found in the
before N. T.
2
Lxx
or,
In N. T.
Eph.
313
Thes. 3"
ct h.l.;
also in 2
Clem.
Herm. Mand.
y^'.
and
2
in
Symm.
4. 191:
2-:
In Polyb.
to xifxxstv:
-fjawv
"They
Clem.
Tdq xpoaeuxaq
it is
lyxaxwtxsv,
in effect transitive,
if
a verb of incomplete predication, requiring an infinitive or other equivalent form of expression to complete its
infinitive (or,
one
prefers, is
meaning).
In Philo,
Cojif.
ling
VI,
C. and
8-IO
2
345
Thes. 3",
[x-?;
W.
read xaxoutxevoq)
exva^cpGTQv, in
evxaxTjaTQTs
xaXoTCotouvteq,
is,
and
meaning
of the verb
Herm. Mand.
xal
^lacXiTVQq ccExouti-evoq
t6
a'tTTjtJ-a ifiq
<^oxfiq aou,
edv Se
exxaxTjaif);;
xal
St4'UX'']<Jif5^
StBovxa aot.
Cf.
Mt.
iii,
and
for the
grammatical usage
the verb
BMT 457,
31').
459.
may
Kacpqi JStV
is
paralleled, in
is
used.
exceptional.
On
N. T. at least, only in i Tim. 2 61^, and Yet the use of the separate words is not tStoq, meaning "appropriate, due," cf. i Cor.
conditional
15" Acts i.
The
participle
flx>.u6[JLsvoi is
(BMT
436).
exXuw, used
by
from Homer down in a variety of meanings derived from the etymological sense "to loose," "set free," and in the Lxx and Apocr., occurs in N. T. in the passive only and with the meaning "to faint": (i) "to become exhausted physically" (Mt. 15" Mk.
classical writers
8), (2)
12'.
'
et
h.L).
irdvTas,
"Apa ovv Q)s Kaipov e^^oo^iev, ipya^cojJLeda to ayaBov irpos ndXiara de irpos rovs oUeLOvs rrjs Trt'crrecos. "As therefore we have opportunity, let us do that which is good
10.
towards
all,
With
Because of the
do good
to their fellow
men
in general,
i<B*3i,
2,2)^
102,
tb<;
al.
ex^tJ^sv;
read
lxo[xev.
The
rarity of
^BCDFG
v..
al.;
AB'LP
of
326, 1908,
al.
read
ofxsOa.
tive following
the subjunctive in
side.
The weight
documentary
authority
is
on the same
346
on the
GALATIANS
side of the indicative,
is
on 'Qq
6epiao[JLev in v.'.
e'xwtJLev is
(i'v
being omitted as in a
Totq dtyaeolq v.,
BMT 307.
5".
On
ih dJYaQov
is
cf.
on
but
15'.
advantageous," see
is
Rom. 7"
on
is
dtyotGwcjuvT],
The
There
expression
xb xaX6v,
V.9,
signifying, rather,
is
what
is
beneficial to another
than
what
morally right.
be taken as limiting either Eph. 4") or the whole expression epYat^toasOa xh dyaOdv and meaning "towards," as in i Thes.
see below,
xpbq
x(ivxa<;
may
{cf.
51^
Eph.
6' (Ell).
oExElot (from Hesiod down; in N. T. in Eph. 29 i Tim. 5* was apparently used in later Greek without distinct suggestion of a household in the strict sense, yet in view of Paul's conception of the intimate unity of all believers {cf. i Cor. 3i' i' 12'-*) and the ex-
Though
et h.i.)
pression of this idea in terms borrowed from the idea of the house
(i
is
Cor. 3
cf.
also
Eph.
2^^ i
Tim. 3")
it is
whom
it
refers as
members
"zr^q
Tzia-zeoiq
Cf.
is
on I" and detached note on Uiaxiq, UicxsOoi, p. 483. The genitive a genitive of characteristic and the whole expression means "those
are
who
of
members
is
which
The
. .
.
do good to
all
men by
[xdcXiaxa
x(aTco>q,
opposes.
To promote
e.
g.,
who have
who have
If,
not,
indefensible from
by the general
of those
such an exhortation might be judged to be consistent with or demanded In time of famine principle of love to one's neighbour.
who had
recently
religious prejudice,
members of a Christian church composed come out of heathenism would, because of be unlikely to receive any help at the hands of
Unless, therefore, their distress were
relieved
by
their fellow-Christians,
VI,
non-Christians.
first
lo-ii
therefore, they
347
would have a
claim. Moreover, the non-Christian members of the community would naturally expect the Christians most surely to manifest their love to one another. If, therefore, a Christian were left in distress this would be even more to the discredit of the new religion than if a non-Christian went hungry.
V.
I.
(6'^-'^).
In his
sis
way dependent on
all who walk by this prinand a prayer for mercy upon the Israel of God. ^^See with how large letters I write to you with my own hand! ^"^As many as wish to make a good showing in things pertaining to
compel you
to receive
may
may
from me
to
Lord
whom
to
me and
to
a world.
cumcision, but a
new
act of creation.
^^And as
many
as shall walk
by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy upon the Israel of God.
11. *'I5eT T7]\lkols vfitv ypdiifxacTLP eypaxj/a rrj
''See with
ejirj
%tpt.
you with my own hand !" At this point the apostle, who usually employed an amanuensis for the writing of his letters {cf. Rom. 1622), and doubtless had done so in the case of this letter also, took the pen in his own hand to write the concluding paragraph. Cf. similar instances
how
in 2 Thes. 3^^
4^^.
two:
first,
34S
GALATIANS
somewhat humorously yet with serious purpose, in a larger character than his amanuensis had employed; the size of the letters would have somewhat the effect of bold-face type in a modern book, or double underlining in a manuscript, and since the apostle himself called attention to it, it would impress not only the one person who might be reading
also to write,
him
Precisely
how
far
far
own
hand, and
certain
v.^^,
how
means
of
at least,
eypa-yfra is
aorist
(BMT
44).
XI
24;
Aug.
Epist. 146.
B* 23 read
Internal evidence
is
form being good usage with no preponderance of temptation to change on either side. Cf. Bl.-D. 303; also Col. 2> Heb. y*. This being the case, it is more probable that B* 2;^ have inadvertently modified the original than that all the rest of the authorities, including ^?ACD al. have done so.
The
Olsh.,
interpretation of
xif)>.(xot<;
ypafxtxaffiv,
"how
al.)
YpaixiJiaTa
is here excluded by three considerations: (a) though sometimes means "an epistle" (Acts 28"), Paul's invariable
term
(c)
(so
ing would have called for an accusative rather than a dative; and
this epistle is
other epistles.
Zahn
of,
as showing
i
how
would be spoken
also Sief. ad loc.
Heb. 13"
Rom.
8; Pol.
7'.
Cf.
The
is,
is
quite
4*.
2" Phm."-
"
" Col.
ifpai^a in
Cor. 5
and most commentators take vGv lypacj^a much more probable, however, that the verb in the latter verse is epistolary as is suggested by vOv, and that the apostle is contrasting what he is now writing unambiguously with what he previously wrote with the same intent, but so arabigu-
same
sense.
It
is
349
ously that the Corinthians misunderstood him.
The
reference
of
which the
Zahn,
et al.)
is,
sitated
by ordinary
late
that the apostle should have thought at che outset to use the pen himself and to write in a noticeably large hand, and that he should
have kept up
all
is
this strained
and
diflScult
method
of
emphasis through
it,
now
and intended
possibility.
amount
to practical im-
The
his
is
tories
for
son,
x^'pi
"f-o^
[xsyi^^oK;
ypa[JL[jLaffiv
(see
Moff.
That Paul wrote the letter himself because unable to obtain a scribe, and in a large hand because of some physical necessity, an accident to his hand or defect of his eyesight, is in itself improbable in view of i-, and rendered more so by the lack of any explanation to that effect in this sentence, in which he evidently intends by his "large letters" to appeal to the feelings of The objection that there were other parts of the letter his readers.
Introd. p. 88)
not at
all
a parallel one.
its
force in
view of
the fact that the following verses themselves repeat the chief things
that the apostle wishes to impress on the minds of the Galatians.
12. "OcToi
KOL^ovciv
BeKovcTiv
evirpoaccirrjaaL
ev
aapKL^
cvtol
avay-
vfxds
IJLT)
TepLTe/JLPeadai,
povov
as
XPtcTTov
hdiKbiVTai'
"As many
flesh, these
compel you
may
not be persecuted
letters written
first
with his
own hand
to
It is trouble for themselves that they wish to Themselves members of the orthodox Jewish community, different from other Jews only in that they accepted
the Jewish point of view were vital, but to Paul purely external
350
and
physical.
If
GALATIANS
they can do this they
will
cution which the apostle had himself sufiered (5"), and to which
memthey
a dative of cause.
The word
is,
of course,
used by
metonymy
works
sive
of law.
it it
is
the
makes
offen-
and an occasion
StcoKcoz-'rat,
of persecution.
The use
of the present
tense
own
'1-fiaou
is
added
its
after
Xp'.jToG
by B
31 only.
it
but follows
domini to Jesu.
There
is
ToG Xpto-Tou only after axaupoc; (see detached note on Titles and Predicates of Jesus, III, p.
398,
and
cf.
Cor.
i^'
Phil. 3'').
This
fact,
31
is
the product
titles of Jesus.
Cf.
on
2'.
SBD
al.
Dam.
Fol-
lowing
-ovrai.
ACFGKLP
The
610
1908
al.
indicative
evidence on
above and on
Yvcc,
probably the result of itacism. Cf. the 6'- " in Tdf. On the possibility of a
see
Bl/T
198;
m Jn.
5"
Tit.
2*.
E'jxpoffQTr^G)
occurs here
still
first in
later writers.
meaning
is clear,
however,
dTCoXoytav
from
Y^xtc;
Lxx, Gen. 1211; from suxpoawxt'a, "fair of appearance," Dion, Hal. etc.; from euxpoawxtXsorOat, applied to words, and meaning " to be fair " in Ps. 141 *; and from ae[xvoxpoaa)xso>, "to assume a solemn face," Aristoph. Nuh. 363. See further in Cremer
euxpoawxoq
aot ^ivoixo,
and
in
and Eisner. The term is evidently here used in a figurative sense. Iv aapxt means "in the sphere of things that have their basis in the body." adcp^ is here fundamentally physical in its meaning, but is
VI,
used by
the
I
12-13
whole sphere of
IlvsujjLa
life
351
conditioned
metonymy
to include the
flesh;
see detached
note on
by and 2d:p5, II 5, and cj. though the meaning is not quite the
same
than
The whole
whom
it
refers
whose
euxpoawxtlv ev capxt
is
men"
a paraphrastic interpretation,
as in 2".
dvayxit^oujc
is,
of course, conative.
Of the present
themselves:
(i)
infinitive
circumcision as
two explanations suggest which would express the perfect, which would express an a past fact, either of which would be suit7csptT[xv3a6at
aor.,
who without
their
own
5*-
will
were circumcised
in speaking of
(c/.
6)
life.
As
BMT
11), so in this
verb the
present
saril}^
is
This idea
cision."
"get circumcised." (2) There is some reason to ^believe that expressions of compulsion, consisting of a verb and dependent infinitive are thought of as constituting a unit, and as being as a whole either conative or resultative. It is true, at least, that the aorist of dvayxdl^o) is resultative and is in N. T. always followed by an aorist infinitive, and that the present and imperfect of Thus dvayxdt^ci) are conative and are followed by a present infinitive. the present is found in Acts 26", Gal. 2^\ and here; the aorist in Mt. i4 Mk. 6 Lk. 14" Acts 291' Gal. 2'.
Cf. Moffatt's translation,
WH.
luthic,
p,-/),
is
anaco-
There
is
punctuation in the fact that the apostle almost invariably places the
[x-^
immediately after
absence from
the
of
which
xt^
aTaupw
that Paul has in this case departed from his otherwise almost invariable
cust'^m and, as in
i
Cor.
2^ 2
Cor.
1310, interjected
and
(JLTQ.
13. ovhe
yap
01
irepLTefivofxevoL
avrol
vojjlov
Trj
(f>v\ci(Taov(nv,
aWa
vfierepa aapKl
Kavxn^f^vTai.
receive circumcision
352
GALATIANS
you
to
be circum-
may
expressed by jiovov in
escape persecution),
converts, ol TepiTe/dvoiievoL^
do
not themselves
would not disprove the zeal of the judaisers, but to the do not undertake to keep it in full and are not required by the judaisers to do so. See 5^ and notes there.
Trepirejivojievoi^
ol
however,
does
not refer
specifically
to
those
who among
would have
fxevoi).
<j)v\daaov(TLV
who under
vojjlov
in
53,
but
fact that
*'In your flesh" means "in the is used quahtatively. you have been circumcised," which would be the sign
legalistic
of
your conversion to
The words
dvayxa!^.
b[i.
Judaism.
repeat
. . .
BlXouatv
ufxaq
xeptTitJ.vco0ai
the
thought
of
in
ev
Yva Yva
xauxTjatovxat expresses
\i.ii
Btwxwvxat.
The phrase
the
sapxi, referring
material
chosen in preference
the
ing.
more
On
aapxf here
cf.
unworthy character of their boast3'. It is more literally emdenoting the sphere of the
literally
by i<ACDKP
al.
Mcion.
reads
Vg. (qui
cir-
Dam.
the
reading of
impossible
BL
aL^" (F
xeptTitxvTj^xot,
both
readings,
but
probably
attesting
Hier. Ambrst.
the perfect), d g (qui circumcisi sunt) Goth. Boh. Eth. Victorin. Aug. External evidence is not decisive. Transcriptional
VI,
probability favours
-[xv6^svot,
13
perfect
353
would have been a
xeptTSTtx.)
since the
the
common view
Sief.,
held
Zahn,
(Wies.
Mathias hold the other view) the following reasons are decisive: (i) It is very doubtful whether Paul could have alleged in this unqualified way, and without explanation that the Jewish Christians did not keep the law. Rom. chap. 2, is scarcely a parallel case. (2) Had he wished to affirm it, the words o\ jccptT[j.v6[xevot would have been superfluous, the subject of (fuX&aaouaiv being the same as that of StwxtovTat. This afi5rmation would have been most forcibly and clearly expressed by ouSI ydcp otCitoI v6[a.
and, according to
(foX
Had
of the
judaisers
must
(a)
ol
xeptx.,
but o5xoi
xepiT.,
is
The
tense of
the participle
may
those
who perform
it
(or, in
mark
(BMT
123-126), yet
not so employed,
mind
is
if
(b)
For this he must inevitably have Throughout this epistle the present of
infinitive,
whether in participle,
or subjunctive,
5^-
'
6^'^-
">,
in the sense
"to get circumcised" (Moffatt), not in the sense "to be a circumcised (4) This conclusion is confirmed by 5^, which shows that the
judaisers
mind
easily supplies
judaisers
beginning of
and
all
* Ellicott's assertion:
"The
may
St.
a past act), but their endeavour thereby to draw others into the same state, which
a present
and continuing act," ascribing to the present passive the ideas expressed by an aorist passive and a present active, is manifestly incorrect. In the passage cited by Ell. and at greater length by Ltft. ad loc, from Act. Petr. et Paul., 63, the present Trepneixvoixevoi does seem to have something of the force of a perfect. But arguments drawn from the usage ot this book, considerably later than Paul, are hardly strong enough to overthrow the clear evidence of Galatians itself. The oi peovT^^ quoted by Ltft. from Plato, Thecet. 181A, is a nickname, which
our participle quite certainly
is
not.
23
354
\j[i.ac,
GALATIANS
parallelism between OcXouaiv
xptxi[J.v3a6at of v.*'.
b[i.aq
xeptTitxva8at, v.^^b
and
(i\ayv.&l,o{jm\>
14.
ifJLol
5e
IJL7)
yevoLTO Kavx^crdaL
ei
fir]
ev
rw aravpQ) tov
iaTavpcoTai
Kvpiov
rjiioiv
KoGiJLijd.
^Irjaov l^picrrov, dt
ov
ifJiol
koojjlos
Kayo)
"But
far be
it
cross of our
crucified to
Lord J esus Christ, me and I to a world." In striking contrast with the boasting of the judaisers, which has its sphere and basis in the mere material flesh of men, the apostle sets forth as his ground of boasting note eVot emphatic by position the
{cf.
Rom.
i^^ i
Cor.
life.
which has wrought a complete revolution in his own rw (TTavpo) undoubtedly has the same significance as in
See in
v.^^
v.^^.
is
quite certainly
employed here in the fifth of the meanings indicated in the note on Sroi^j^eta rod koo-jjlov, p. 514, viz., "the mode of life characterised by earthly advantages." But the particular earthly advantages which the apostle has in mind are not, as in I Jn. 2^5, etc., the sensual pleasures of riches and other like
things, but, rather, those of
which he speaks in
Phil.
33.
when
was
him
its
new
significance,
that of IsraeHtish descent, circumcision, the rank and dignity of a Pharisee, the righteousness that is in law, touching which
he was blameless. To this world he became dead by the cross of Christ, because in Christ's death on the cross he saw a demonstration that God's way of accepting men was not on the
basis of
^13 44,
5
works
of law,
Cf.
2^'^' 20
Rom.
of the cross
is
in
what
it
towards men, see the extended discussion of 313. The fulness of the expression tov Kvpiov 'qjiMV T?]croi) 'Kpiarov adds weight to
the utterance
and
cf.
ment
is
made;
of Jesus, p. 393.
in the cross," see
i
emotion with which the stateTitles and Predicates As to what the apostle means by "boasting
reflects the
i^^^-
Rom.
52-
3.
".
VI,
14-15
On
Lk.
355
i'^;
On
The
is
\iii
ylvotTo, see
on 2l^
[li]
(here only in
infinitive
N. T. with
ylvotTo),
see also
[lii
but
Lxx; cf. Gen. 44'- ^ Josh. 22" 241^ i Ki. 20 (21)3 1 Mac. gio jj6 (cited by Ltft.); for the inf. after other forms of Ytvo[xat, cf. Acts g" Lk, 6^' Mt. iS^^. The use of y.Qa[xoq and x6a[jL(p without the
common
in
article gives to
cf.
Rom.
ii^s i
Cor.
3" 2 Cor. 515. e^J-oi and 2" and cf. Rom. d''- " "
on vo^w,
7'.
Si'
through the instrumentality of which he had wholly severed connection with his old world ot Pharisaic dignity and legalism, leaves undescribed the process by which the cross achieved this result.
20,
on
3"'
^*-
15. ovT
KTL(TLS.
yap
aKpo(3vaTLa,
aXKa
Kaivrj
cision,
"For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumbut a new act of creation." In these words the apostle
who
glory in circumcision
(v.^^);
yet
ground
of boasting,
whether
it
Jew was
which
is
5^ where
to the Treptro/x?}
ktlctls is
new moral
is
life {cf.
Col.
3^''),
but
word as
ktCgis, "creation,"
is
The
to
fact referred to
2^'^' 20
that which
d^-^' ^^
de-
Rom.
What
meant
afSrm about
naivr] KTcais
he leaves to
The
gests
tial"
it,
is
Cf. 5^
Cor. 7".
is
attested
by B
2,2,,
hard,
pal.)
S*ACDFGKLP
356
pier,
GALATIANS
d f g Vg. Boh. Sah.(?) Euthal. Thdrt. Dam. Victorin. Amb. Ambrst. read Iv yap Xptaxo) 'Itjaou outs. Despite the weight of the group supporting the latter reading {cf. on 2" 3^1 526 62. " i^) it is clearly
a harmonistic corruption under the influence of
rect reading
is
5*.
As
preserved by
^s
al.
Lxx and
Apocr.,
is
used in N. T. either
as a verbal noun,
meaning "act of creation," Rom. i^", xTi'atq %6a[iou, or, (2) as a concrete noun equivalent to yt.rb\x.(x either (a) individually, "a created person or thing," Rom. 8" Heb. 4'=, or (b) collectively, of the sum of
created things, or the total of a particular class of created things:
Rev.
I
31* Rom. 8" (Mk. 161O; the meaning in the difficult passage Pet. 2" need not be discussed here. The use of the same phrase,
51',
suggests the
%egixo[iri
and dxpo^uaxfa
The
-f)
by
-f)
passages,
ouBev
Tt
Cor.
dtXXd:
ouT^s
y^^:
xeptxo^^)
oiS^v
6eou,
eaxcv,
xal
dxpo^uaxfa
o2ts
eaxtv,
{cjxust
TTjpiQat^
IvxoXcov
and Gal.
Be'
5':
xeptTO^JLTQ
dxpoguaTca,
dXka
Tziaxiq
iy&irqq
member
of
the antithesis
is
a term of action.
In
all
qualitative.
is
instruc-
tive.
and
d-{6i%rj
In
Cor. 7"
irip-Qaiq
life
and more formal, in that no intimation is given of the content of the commandments, xatv^ Y.iiaiq in the present passage is, on the one
side, less definite as to the
moral character of the new life than either on the other hand, directs attention to
thus produced.
the radical change involved rather than to the external expression or the moral quality of the
life
Any
close connection
(a
between
ture),
this
expression
'^'^'jn
nna
new
crea-
meaning "proselyte," is improbable.* To have used a phrase which would naturally be understood as meaning a proselyte would have been to render the sentence confused and self-contradictory. Had the expression been in current use with this meaning, Paul must at least have added Iv Xptaxq).
*
Euthalius (Zacagnius,
Collect.
Monum.
Quest. 183
(Montrt eariv
cure oLKpo^va-Tia
aWa
Georgius Snycellus {Chron. Ed. Dind. I 48), whose statement, however, is probably based, like the others, upon that of Euthalius, specifies an apocalypse of Moses as the very similar source of the quotation. The fact that the same epigrammatic saying recurs
Moses.
lorm
(c/.
above) in
is
a quotation.
But,
VI,
16. Kai
ocroL
15-16
tovtm
'
357
Lpr}vy)
ro) KauovL
aroixvcrovaiv^
iw
as
Kal iwi
"And
many
as shall
walk by
this rule,
upon the
Israel of
God."
peace be upon them, and mercy The apostle concludes this paragraph
(cf.
on v.^O
with a benediction upon all whose life is conformed to the great principle for which he has been contending, viz., the essentially spiritual character of reHgion as against the ascription of fundainental religious value to
however sanctioned,
2
KavSv,
Cor.
io^3-x6
only,
is
"straight edge,"
have here
its
metaphorical
"principle."
aroLxeoJ
While
of
v.^^
to
proposition which
affirms
is
fundamental importance
He who recognises the valuethe determination of conduct. lessness of such externals as circumcision and uncircumcision
and the necessity of the new spiritual life will, on the one hand, be unmoved by the appeal of the judaisers to receive circumcision, and on the other seek, rather, to be led by, and to live
by, the Spirit.
Kal
thfc
'iXeoq is
elpiQVT),
as with
it
comma
Sief.
being placed
after eXsoq
(so
Tdf.
WH.
Ltft. Alf.
it is
Wies.
Zahn).
to
be
said: (a)
The
sXsoq
i" 2
order elpVo
ekeoq,
one
in
I
both words have reference to placing effect first and cause afterif
wards.
joined with
i^ 2
elpTjVTj
^
elsewhere in benedictions in N. T.
Jude \ always preceding dp-qvq. Note, also, the often-repeated benediction, x&giq and efptjVTj, in which x^P^^r closely corresponding to eXsoq in meaning, always precedes e!pT]VTQ. xal sXzoq becomes, then, an afterthought, to which x.al i%\ xhv
Tim.
Tim.
Jn.
entitled
"Apocalypse
is
ot
Moses"
is
The statement
The extant
so-called
But even though the passage should "Assumption of Moses" actually have been founa in the text of some apocryphon of Moses as extant in Euthalius's day, that dlone would by no means make clear what was the relation between this and the Certainly the evidence as above displayed is not strong enough to prove Pauline writing.
does not contain the sentence.
thai this
is
a quotation.
35S
'I<jpa:f)X
GALATIANS
Tou GeoG appends a second afterthought,
(b)
Though Rom.
and Rom.
all
to the flesh
2^9 Phil.
and the
3'
toO GeoG of
be-
in fact,
no instance
These
to the Christian
yet, in
view of
-roij
0eou,
not to the whole Jewish nation, but to the pious Israel, the remnant
according to the election of grace (Rom. ii^), including even those who had not seen the truth as Paul saw it, and so could not be included in oaot In this case the benediction falls into two discxotx. tinct parts. In the first the apostle invokes peace upon those who recognise and act in accordance with the principle of v.^', and, in distinction from them, the mercy of God through which they may obtain enlightenment and enter into peace, upon those within Israel who
. . .
Against
of little weight.
by the
insertion of
Y.al,
Kavcov
is
Cf. Gregory,
Canon and
Homer
down
(i)
probably originally
made of reed or cane." number of implements, most of which were made of cane, the name being retained though
e.
g.,
the rods
arm was
passed:
VIII 193; XIII 407; the shuttle or quill, by which the threads of the woof were passed between those of the warp, //. XXIII 761; in classical
times most frequently of the rule or straight edge used by masons and
carpenters: Soph. Frag. 421; Eur. Troiad. 6; Aristoph. Av. 999, 1002; Plato, Phil. 56B; vEschin. 3'"'^ etc. (in the same meaning, but metaphorically used: Aristoph. Ran. 799: Eur. Supp. 650); later of the
scribe's rule,
Anth. Pal.
63;
keys or stops of a
balance,
flute,
Anth. Pal.
334.
(2)
Anth. Pal.
11.
upon the basis of the meaning most frequentl}^ found in classical times, "a ruler or straight edge," that the word came to be used in a metaphorical sense, of anything regulative, determinative, a rule or standard. It
is
VI,
of
of
it.
i6-i7
it:
359
(11 13 a");
Lycurg. 149. 4;
the Aopuqj6poq of
of the good man, Arist. Eth. N. 3. 6 Polvclcitus and the book explaining
Pliny,
Plat. V 3; of a general rule or // N. 34. 55; Galen, Hippocr. et Epict. Diss. I 28"; Luc. principle: Anecdota GrcBca (Bekker), 1180; which served to deterIMieus, 30; of a list of the chief epochs or eras, things of the dates, Plut. Sol. 27S and for other mine intermediate
difficult passage, is found but once, in the differing from the the translator either read a text Mic 7S where meaning is probably Massorah, or misunderstood the Hebrew., The In the Apocr. it occurs only once, or "line."
"measuring rod"
Jdth. i3
it
(), for
m4
Mac.
7^'
means "rule" or "standard." in but two passages: In N. T., only Paul uses the word and that prefer 10" >'s where the meaning probably is "measure" (others 2 Cor. and in the present passage, the meaning, "limit, boundary-line"),
where which it describes, evidently refers to the preceding sentence, The use of xav(iv principle, serving as a standard. as a general rule or and ordinances, a fixed body of to designate ecclesiastical statutes correct teaching (someChristian doctrines serving as a standard of summed up in the pithy sentences of the Apostimes conceived of as catalogue of martyrs or saints, or the coltle's Creed), the clergy, the doctrine and books accepted as authoritative for Christian
it
lection of
ment
and belongs properly under a treatword. In the lastthe ecclesiastical development of the until the middle mentioned use it is (according to Zalin) not found
of
Athanasius, Deer. Syn. Nic; cf. also of the fourth century a. d., in Athanasms, Canon 59 of the Synod at Laodicea (Mansi II 574); For a fuller treatment of the word, see Zahn, Grm;d^ Letter 39. I^estal Westcott, The Canon Gesch. des ntl. Kanons,- pp. i /.; ef. also
riss der
of the
Text, pp.
15/.
308.
Like
a dative of means.
On
is
the use
hypothetical clause see of the future {<rzoixh^om^-^) in a On efp-nvTj, cf. on i'. The verb to be supplied Cf. Lk. i7. similar connections. tive as in I' 6", and frequently in
BUT
an opta-
2.
Appeal enforced by
reference to his
own
sufferings
ijlol
fxrjdels
7rap%erco, iycb
yap ra
"Hence-
cTTtTMCtra rod
forth let no
in
man
give
me
is
my
body."
This verse
V.^^
trouUe; for I bear the marks of Jesus is best treated, as in WH., as a septhe benediction of the whole epistle,
arate paragraph.
360
GALATIANS
v.^^,
and
v.^'^ jg ^-j^q
benediction con-
vice of Jesus,
and which he
meaning "henceforth."
equivalent to
xiov
The interpretation of Zahn, which makes it aXXwv, a genitive of the whole limiting [iri^siq and
of
Israel,
which
is
is
nega-
tived
by the
The
interpretation of Wies.
which takes
xoij
the sense
"finally,"
4^, etc., is
unsustained
by any
sense.
clear evidence of
Eph,
is
I
610 is
and
quite certain.
K6%oq
2
Cor. 6^
Thes.
clearly
means, not "to impose toil," but "to give trouble"; cf. Sir. 29^ Mt. 261'' Mk. i4 Lk. II' i8^ The use of the present imperative suggests an action already in progress. With [iri^eiq it means, "let no one continue to give, etc.," "let
him
cease giving";
cf.
BMT
165.
By
xa
axt'Y[j,axa
ings as an apostle
Cor.
6^-
ii^sff),
and as the
scars.
effects,
perhaps actual
to to
is
marks
under
211', according to which a fugitive who took refuge in a temple and there received upon his
by Hdt.
Sief.
Philol.
N.
T.,
II, p.
460/.,
says:
quod stigmata sacra gestarent, Deo sacri erant, quosque propterea ille mos Galatis notus fuit. Caussam certe banc affert, cur nmo sibi molestias exhibere debeat, quod stigmata Domini Jesu portet. Mentionem hujus moris facit Herodotus (lib. 2. cap. 113). Erat in littore ad ostium Nili Herculis templum. quod nunc quoque est: eg to jjv Kara^vyiov oi/cexTjs oreo) avOpuinMV eTrijSdAijTat iTTiytJiaTa ipd,
nefas erat tangere,
si
modo
aoxv^-
'''<'"
<^^
6 vofxog ovtoi; SiareAe'ei eojj/ 6/iOio? to ^V 'A.Ke^dvSpov dTrtarreaTai 6epaTTovTe<; nvOoixevoL rbv irepl
TO Ipov
e^O'''''*
'AKe^dvSpov, ^ovKofievot
/SAaTTTeii/
avrov
dicit
VI,
17-18
earlier interpreters,
s6i
suppose the apostle
and
of
on that
of a soldier, indi-
whom he serves; cf. Hdt. 7"'; Diod. Sic. 34. 2>; Deissmann, whom Zahn and M. and M. Voc. follow,
charm, warding
off attack,
appealing espeJ.
383 of the
Leyden Museum*), containing a spell, in which occur both the word The expression xdiuouq ^(xaT(xQbi and the expression xdxouq izapixetv.
xapex^T^w
is
favourable to the
first
words oux
xoTuouq
Hdt.
2^1'
xapexetv
in the papyrus).
But
it
is
usage described by Herodotus was prevalent in Paul's day and surroundings, or at any rate familiar enough so that a bare allusion to it
would be
intelligible.
As concerns the
is
by the fact that it makes no reference to cziy^iaxa; what the protected one bears being not marks, but a miniature coffin of Osiris. On the other hand, the thought of himself as a slave of Jesus is a favourite one with the apostle, and the custom of branding or otherwise marking slaves was undoubtedly These facts make it most probable that it familiar to the Galatians.
of the papyrus passage
greatly diminished
is
marked
as such
by the
scars
3.
Final benedictions
Kvpiov
(6^^).
18.
rj/jLcov
^Irjaov lLpL(TTOv
fxera rov
TTvevjiaros
adeX^or
aixr]V.
"The
Jesus
spirit,
brethren.
Amen."
The
concluding benedictions of
is specifi-
Nam
.
notabantur, apud
Romanos quidem
eorum noscerentur, et milites in manibus, cum militiae adscriberentur. Chrysostomus comparat cum vulaeribus in bello acceptis. Sed ad scopum Pauli propius accedere videtur, quod ex Herodoto citavimus. Vult enim ipse sacrosanctus et inviolabilis Quanquam quocunque haberi, propterea quod stigmata Domini Jesu in corpora suo gestet. Paulum respexisse dicas, certum tamen est, stigmatum nomine ipsum intelligere vibices ac cicatrices ex plagis illis, lapidationibus et verberibus, quorum meminit 2 Cor. 11" "??
vero, ut domini
.
illorum similem
non
esse, qui
circumcisionem urgebant,
rov '0<rip<os
/cat
6ia>/c
65e'
avo\
7ra7n7reT[ou]
/u.eTOV/Sai'es'
^aara^ia
Tr}v Ta4>riv
viTa.yoi KaTa.\a'T\ri<Ta.i
avrrjv e[i]s 'A|3i5os, KaTacTTrjcrai ei? Ta<TTa<; Kol KaTaOecrOai ets [aAJxaS*
eav
11.01
helva. kottous
TrapaaxH'
"'poo' (t)
362
cally called
GALATIANS
"the grace
like
of the
Phil. 4^3
instead of
the
Ephesians only
in-
letters.
On
the wholly
The
expression "the
its full
to
be taken at
value;
God mani-
fest in Christ
of Christ
(Rom.
etc.),
8^^- ^^),
he expressly
Cor.
8^,
Jesus as
8^*,
and in relation to men (i Thes. 1^ Rom. him as thus living a gracious attitude towards men, manifest on the one hand in spiritual fellowship with them (2^0) and, on the other hand, in intercession for them (Rom. 8^4). The phrase jJLera rov TvevfJLaTos vfxcov shows
still
living
etc.)
ascribes to
that
it is
is
here in mind.
The
sentence
is,
at the end of this letter, in which there is and much strenuous exhortation, the apostle expresses his continued affection for the Galatians. Though the term itself is frequent in Paul's letters, in no other case does he add it to a concluding benediction. The addition of aiJL'^p {cf. on i^), appended to a doxology in i^ Rom. ii^ 16^^ Eph. 321 Phil. 420, etc., and in Rom. 153^ to a benediction (it is
i^^)
on
much
of reproof
Rom.
16^* i
Cor.
16^'' i
Thes.
3^^
Phm.
25)
J
still
and depth
of
the feeling with which the apostle brings to a close this remarkit was probably dictated rapidly, and composed under the stress of deep emotion, the six brief chapters of which it consists constitute one of the most important documents of early Christianity and one of the noblest pleas ever written for Christian liberty and spiritual
able letter.
Though
was
certainly
religion.
APPENDIX.
DETACHED NOTES ON IMPORTANT TERMS OF PAUL'S
VOCABULARY.
PAGE
I.
'AxoaToXoq
IlaT-^p as applied to
363
II.
God
of Jesus
384
392
III.
Titles
and Predicates
IV.
'ExxXiQafa
V.
VI.
VII.
417 420
422
EuayyeXiov Xapiq
E??TjVY]
423
VIII.
IX.
A(a)v
and
Aloivioq
424 426
432
X.
'Evsaxtoq
XL
XII.
XIII.
433
435
'A[xapTta
and
'A'tXapravw
436
Atxaido)
XIV.
N6[ioq
At'xacoq, AtxczioauviQ,
XV.
XVI. XVII. XVIII.
and
443 460
475 486
Hiaxiq and
IXveutxa
IltffTsuto
and H&g^
and Sxspixajiv
AtaG^xY) Sxlp[xaTt
496
505
XIX.
XX.
510 519
XXL
I.
'AnOSTGAGS.*
L
In
CLASSICAL
The word
dtx6aT0>.oc; is
classical authors it is
it
employed both as an adjective and as a noun. was used much as our modern word "despatch" is,
the phrase meaning " a despatch boat," i. e., a boat in commission. In Dem. 252% 262l^ etc., dxoffTdXoq (paroxytone) alone signifies "a naval expedition."
In Herodotus dcxdcxoXoi; (proparoxytone) is used of a person, meaning an ambassador or delegate, a person commissioned by another to represent
See
i^^:
him.
^ev
S-f)
53*: iq AaxsSa([Ji.ova
* For other discussions of the subject see Lightfoot, Commentary on Galatians, pp. 92-101; Harnack, " Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel," in Texte u. Untersuchungen, II 93-118; Hincks, "Limits of the Apostolate," in JBL. 1895, pp. 37-47; Haupt, Zum Verstdndnis des Apostolats;
Monnier, La notion de
I'apostolat.
3^3
364
TptTjpst
GALATIANS
dxdaxoXoq ifivzio*
In
a
in
similar
i
but
more general
heavy
sense,
it
occurs in the
aifX-qpoq:
is
In Jos. Ant.
ing,
18% but not elsewhere in the Greek O. T. 300 (iiO ixoaToXoc; apparently means "a despatch&lq
t?)v
'Pcojjltjv
icpi'xsxo
izpza^zia 'louBattov,
Ouctpou xbv
d;x6aToXov auxtov
tg)
aJTOvofxtaq:
"There
an embassy of Jews, Varus having granted the people the privilege of sending it for the purpose of asking for autonomy." The
indirect evidence of Christian writers seems to
came
Rome
show that
in the post-
Christian period the Jews used the term iTc6aToXo(;, or a Semitic term which
was expressed
in
Greek by
cities,
dxocnroXoc;,
(a)
of persons despatched
from
Jerusalem to other
those who, after the destruction of Jerusalem, were associated with the
patriarch in deliberations and in the carrying out of
ff.
IN GENERAL.
Its general
In the
sense,
New
"a
used in a non-technical
"a representative," one commissioned by another some way. Thus in 2 Cor. 8" and Phil. 2", it is used of persons delegated by a church to execute a commission.! In Heb. 3^ Jesus is spoken of as "the apostle and high priest (ixdaToXoq xal (ipxiepedq) of our confession" and is immediately afterwards characterised as faithful to him that appointed him. J In Jn. i3>6 the word is used
delegate,"
in
to represent
him
in such a
way
"A
servant
is
not greater than his master, nor a delegate (dxdaxoXoq) greater than he
that sent him."
III.
But
of
among
the followers; or
The
full
expression
was
i^
111-,
But
much more
frequently used.
It
is
found in nearly
*For
s. v.; cf.
exx. in inscriptions
Sylloge, 153,
and
the person
who makes
way
repre-
above.
t
is
e. g.,
Jn. 17':
"This
eternal to
know
whom
AHOSTOAOS
all
365
in the apostolic age
New Testament,
well-known
the
common term
for a
The
(reckoned
by the date
of the writing in
which they occur) are found in the Pauline epistles, and the bear witness not only to Paul's claim to be himself an apostle but to before him existence of other members of the class, who were apostles
In the effort to trace the development of the apostolate it will (Gal. ii')be well therefore to begin by inquiring as to the identity of these apostles
before Paul.
I.
The
apostles before
Twelve and
In the number of those who were apostles before him, Paul evidently i^^-i^ 2'). In the gospels includes Peter, and in all probability John (Gal.
tion.
there are frequent references to twelve disciples of Jesus, whom Mt. once are most calls the twelve apostles and Lk. refers to as the apostles, but who
Of
this
John were members. These facts do not warrant the assumption that the Twelve and the apostles are identical, especially in view of the apparent distinction between them in i Cor. 1$^- '; but they suggest the wisdom of beginning with an inquiry concerning the Twelve, while avoiding any presupposition as to their precise relation to the apostles. The expression "the Twelve," ol BcoBexa, in i Cor. 15^, consisting simply
of the
article,
taken in
its
context makes
it
evident
that
when the epistle was written this was a recognised title of a certain group who had been in his lifetime disciples of Jesus. This is made the more clear by the fact that, according at least to the third gospel and Acts, the company consisted at the time referred to, not of twelve, but of eleven persons. The existence of this company which Paul predicates for the
time immediately after the resurrection, the gospels carry back into the
lifetime of Jesus.
ol
Ba)3exa,
67 gzi io32
22''
<7
with evident reference to a company of Jesus' disciples (Mk. 41" nil 1410. 17. 20. 43 Mt. 20" [text uncertain] 26''^' " Lk. 8^ gi-i* 18"
'"
Jn. 6"'
"
2o*).
all
It should
all
those in Lk., except 81 and g^S are parallel to passages in Mk. and probably derived from that source. Mk. (3". ), followed by the other synoptists, records the selection of these Twelve by Jesus, and Mt. and Mk. give the
list of
them by name (Mk. 31"-" Mt. lo^-^ cj. also Acts !" ") That such a company existed not only in Paul's day, when retrospectively at least it was referred to as the Twelve, but also in Jesus' own day on this point
there
It
is
is
of the gospels.
in the lifetime
name
is
this
of Jesus.
In
Mk.
I
14''"
Jesus
said to
of the
may mean
"Have
3^6
GALATIANS
in view of the late date of the fourth gospel. Yet in view of the evidence that this was a very early, probably the earliest now extant, name for the inner circle of Jesus' disciples, and of the probability that even in Jesus'
even in
common title for the company, it is not unlikely was then known as "the Twelve." The persistence of the name, the latest gospels, and its occurrence in Acts 6^ show that it continol
ued
The phrase
frequent in
all
not in
itself restricted to
them.
The
is
expression o\
Mt, only
and
in all instances
The application of the term "apostles" to the Twelve. Reference has been made above to the evidence that Peter and John, who were among the Twelve, were also counted by Paul among those who were apostles before him. Mt. lo" shows that when this passage of the first gospel took
all the Twelve were accounted apostles. Yet this designaTwelve as apostles is rather infrequent in the gospels. It occurs, besides Mt. lo^ in Mk. 3" (on the text see below) 6^" Lk. 6" 9" 175 22" 2410
its
present form,
tion of the
Of these passages Mt. lo^ only uses the expresSwosxa dxoffToXoi, found elsewhere in N. T. in Rev. 211^, and in
In Mt.
it is
clearly
an
editorial equivalent of ol
ol
SwSexa
[lab-qzai in v.i,
which
itself
represents
the simple
StoSsxa of
Mk. 6^
SwSsxa of
In Lk.
241"
we have no
175
and
the pas-
but in view of 22", the word dxdcToXot can not with confidence be any older source than the editor of this gospel. In Lk. 9", however, the expression is taken over from Mk. 63", which therefore attests the use of the term as a title of the Twelve as early as the date of the second
sages,
carried back to
an early and now unattested corOnly Mk. 3^* and Lk. 61' ascribe this usage to Jesus.* The text of Mk. 31" is open to some doubt. The words ouq xa\ dxoaxoXouc; (ov6[xaaev, though attested by BCA al., and on this evidence included in the text by WH. and set in the margin by RV., are rejected by Tdf. Tr. Ws. Sd. The words are evidently in Mk. a scribal addition from Lk. 6",
ruption of the text.
or in Lk. are taken over by the editor from Mk. In other words, we have here a single witness, either the second evangelist or the third. Whatever the date of this testimony it does not affirm that Jesus at this time gave to
name apostles, and does not necessarily mean that he at any time conferred on them the title of apostles. If it is of late origin, it probably referred in the author's mind to the bestowal of a title, but if early
the Twelve the
ajToo-ToAoi includes
11" and Jn. i3> are ascribed to Jesus, and in both cases the term by implication his immediate followers, but it is not restricted to them
them.
or employed as a
title for
'AnosTOAOs
may
have meant only that he was wont
to speak of
367
them
as his messengers,
According to Acts i"-''* there existed within the company of one hundred and twenty disciples of Jesus who gathered in Jerusalem after his death and resurrection, a smaller company having a distinct Biaxov(a. This smaller company constituted not an indefinite group, but an organic body of definite number and function. The context leaves no room for doubt that it is the Twelve that are here referred to. Note the list of the Twelve in v.", the mention of Peter and Judas, w."- i, and the implication of a definite number, within the company of the one hundred and twenty, which This passage purports to represent the ideas is to be kept complete. of the Twelve themselves very soon after the death and resurrection of The Acts author by his use of the word "apostles" in vv.'Jesus. attaches these ideas to the apostolate. The divergence between the conditions here implied as those of the apostolate and those which the rest of the book shows to have been regarded by the author himself as necessary, makes it improbable that the passage has been essentially modified from the source. For example, these conditions would have excluded Paul from the apostleship. Yet the general point of view of the Acts author forbids us to suppose either that he denied that Paul was an apostle, or that it was his intention to bring into prominence the conflict between the early Christian and the Pauline definition of apostleship. The reasonable explanation
'^'^
is
it
over sub-
unchanged from some earlier source. As concerns the historicity of this source, it might conceivably have been an anti-Pauline source written with the purpose of excluding Paul from the apostolate. But two things are against this. First, Luke was evidently unaware of any such antiPauline bias in his source; and secondly, the word apostle does not occur in the body of the passage, as would almost certainly have been the case if it had been written to bear a part in the controversy over the apostolate. It seems probable, therefore, that this passage, which undoubtedly reflects the idea held at some period of the apostolic age as to the function and status of the Twelve at the beginning of that age, does in fact convey to us
the thought of a very early period.
But a part
of the
recognition of the
also that this
same evidence which points to the early existence and Twelve as a definite group with a distinct 8tay,ov{a indicates group was not yet called the apostles. The Acts author,
first
twelve chapters
apostles.
But
this
In the narrative
in the in the
statement of
v.'
apostles,
368
to
GALATIANS
earlier source.
an
Twelve" as constituting in this early period a definitely organised body, and the Acts author thought of them as the apostles, the evidence indicates that in the period of the events here recorded the Twelve
ceived of "the
whom
have used the term as he does in this passage unless those whom he there calls apostles were also so designated in their own circle. That he speaks of them as having been apostles before him implies that before he entered on his career as an apostle they were already exercising the function by virtue of which he now called them apostles, most naturally also that they
name before that time. Paul is thus in agreement with the Acts author in Acts i", in that he carries the apostolic function at least back to a very early period in the history of the Christian community.
bore the
If
now we compare
this evidence
will per-
light
upon the
from evidence
when the gospel of Lk. was written, all the Twelve were counted as apostles, and that they were supposed to have constituted the original company of the apostles. To say "the apostles" when speaking
of the life of Jesus was, therefore, equivalent to saying
"the Twelve."
From
differs
first
With the
title,
latter
we
are
not
of
now
What we have
to note
is
Lk.-Acts
the Twelve were apostles and had been such from the
apostle Paul also refers to certain of the Twelve as apostles, and though he does not definitely include all of them under the term, yet in the absence of any limitation of the title to a part of the Twelve, it is probable that he is in agreement with Luke on this point. The usage of Lk.-Acts in this respect would then be carried back to the date of Galatians at least, and by probable implication to a point a decade or two earlier, when Paul became an apostle. Further than this we can not go with confidence. It is not indeed impossible, in view of Mk. 3" and the evidence of the early designation of the Twelve as apostles, that Jesus was wont to speak of the Twelve as his n-'n-'Su' (messengers), or in Greek d-Tcdaxo).!. But in view of the fact that our earliest definite knowledge of its use with titular force comes from the sixth decade of the first century, and in view of the possibility that Mk. 3" and Lk. 6" may involve some antedating of the usage of a later period, we can not date the use of the term as a title applied pre-eminently or exclusively to the Twelve more definitely than between the middle of Jesus' ministry and the middle of the century, and can not say whether it was first used as a Hebrew or as a Greek term. There are, indeed, four possibilities which with their subdivisions become
beginning.
The
'An02T0A02
369
First, the term "apostle" may have been applied first of all to the seven. Twelve (i) by Jesus in his lifetime, (ii) after the death of Jesus, and in either case have been gradually extended to include other men of like function Secondly, the term may have first been applied to a comin the church. pany that included both the Twelve and others {e. g., the seventy) (i) in
Jesus' lifetime,
(ii)
made to the company. Thirdly, the term may have been first applied to a company within the Twelve (i) in Jesus' lifetime, (ii) after his death, in either case the number being afterwards extended to include all the Twelve
been first applied men, partly of the Twelve, partly not, e. g., Peter, James, the Lord's brother, and John, and afterwards been extended as on the previous supposition. Bearing in mind these
also.
may have
company
of influential
hypotheses we
(c)
may
pass to consider
The
extent of the
company
The evidence
already cited tends to show that though Paul had personal relations with
only a few of the Twelve, perhaps only with Peter and John, yet the expression "apostles before
me" would on
his lips
the Twelve.
others.
It
made
company
is
Twelve constituted an
Eventual
indeed
body having a
definite
number and
specific function.
from among
whom
vacancies
may
be
filled;
body within a generation. But the passage makes no reference to such diminution, or to any possible increase of the number; it contemplates only the restoration and maintenance of the number which had been reduced by the treachery and death of Judas. That the Acts author by his v.^^ associates these ideas with the apostles
this limitation implies the extinction of the
indicates that he supposed that in the early apostolic age there were twelve
apostles,
no more, no
less.
cited as evidence
certifies
it
was believed
that the
number
of the
Twelve was
to
be preserved intact
and presumably as long as there were among those who fulfilled the condown competent persons to fill the vacancies as they occurred. Nothing is implied as to the opinion of the Acts author on the question how many apostles there might come to be.
Paul's inclusion of
(Gal.
ii')
following closely
of those
who were
apostles before
him
does not necessarily imply, that James was an apostle before Paul was.
show that
as early as
Galatians, probably
at the time of the visit to Jerusalem to which he here refers, the apostolic
24
370
GALATIANS
body included others than the Twelve, i. e., the original eleven and Matthias. But we do not know whether James was added to the Twelve, as Matthias was, by being elected to fill a vacancy, and acquired the title of apostle by virtue of his membership in the Twelve, or whether he became an apostle without being numbered with the Twelve. It is, however, distinctly improbable that the apostles and the Twelve were at the time when James became an apostle mutually exclusive bodies. This was clearly not the case when Paul wrote, nor when Acts was written. We have no evidence that it was the case when James became an apostle.
I Cor. 9*^- indicates clearly the existence of a class of apostles which included on the one side Paul and doubtless also Barnabas, and on the
unnamed persons, whose standing as apostles was, however, and undisturbed. It may be safely assumed that " the rest of the apostles" here spoken of included those to whom in Gal. i^^ Paul The mention of Cephas refers as "those who were apostles before me." can not be understood as excluding him from the group of apostles, and since this is so, neither can it be assumed that the brethren of the Lord are Yet the most probable explanation of the somewhat peculiar so excluded. enumeration in v.^ is that the brethren of the Lord constituted as such a
other, certain
quite assured
group from the apostles {i. e., that not all of the brethren of the Lord were apostles, as certainly not all of the apostles were brethren of the Lord), but that they occupied a position in the church, of dignity, influence, and privilege, similar to that enjoyed by the apostles. If we seek an explanation of this withholding of the name "apostle" from those to whom practically the same position was accorded, it seems to be suggested by v.^
different
V.i,
"Have
now
regarded as a condition of
of inclusion
company
of the
Twelve, while
Cor.
155-7,
mentioning specifically
the epiphany to James, but none to his brothers, suggests that he alone of the brethren of Jesus enjoyed this privilege and distinction. If this is the
names to add to the list of apostles before Paul, makes an important contribution to our knowledge of the limits of the apostolate on the non-Pauline side, suggesting that James was an apostle and his brethren not, though occupying a kindred position in the church, and that the reason for this discrimination was that he was a witness of the resurrection and they were not.
correct explanation, the passage, though furnishing no specific
I
the question of the extent of the apostolate. It reads as follows: For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that he appeared
phas, then to the Twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James;
then to
all
the apostles.
And
me
also.
The phrase
phrase occurs here, might refer to a group entirely distinct from those pre-
'AnosTOAOs
371
group in viously mentioned; yet most naturally designates the whole of a Such portion may be distinction from a portion previously mentioned. phrase a reffound either in the Twelve (so, Chrysostom, who found in the
erence to a
band
James.
The
either prima facie view of the language would also be that the phrase refers narrated or to all who to all who were apostles at the time of the event in were such at the time of writing. The latter hypothesis is, however,
For (i) the meaning "all who are now apostles" this case improbable. improbable implies a detachment of the thought from the narrative that is an origiboth in itself and because it would involve the mental addition to
nal
number
(ii)
of apostles of those
the
title,
therefore, the phrase would strictly include Paul himself, whom, to, he must have since he certainly was not present at the time referred That he means "all the apostles" in distinction from tacitly excepted. a part of the the Twelve, with the implication that the latter constituted mention of the former, is also improbable in view of the remoteness of the the intervention of the mention of the five hundred brethren
and
Twelve and the and of James. The improbability of this view is further increased by larger absence of any other evidence that there was at that time any such means those group. If, then, we set aside the hypothesis that the phrase who are now apostles, and the supposed reference to the Twelve, and if we he is assume precision of expression on Paul's part, we shall infer that
speaking of a
of those
after
and which included all such in this case we contrast with James, who was only one of the company. In But that apostles. shall conclude that James was at that time one of the certain. Paul spoke with such precision of expression is, itself, by no means
the death of Jesus were called apostles,
the aposSuch a passage as i Cor. pS in which Paul speaks of "the rest of warns us against treating tles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas," statistician or a logician. his enumerations as if they were drawn up by a the same person to whom he refers If, as is probable, he means by James was not an apostle, in Gal. ii=' 2S to affirm that at the time referred to he that we would be indeed to beg the question at issue, but it is at least true this, pashave no evidence outside this passage that he was such, and that necessary, therefore, sage is not decisive evidence on this point. It seems was with certain other possibilities. Having in mind that James
to reckon
to, or
the apostles" not being apostles, Paul may have used the expression "all thinking of with the emphasis on "apostles" rather than on "all." Or, to the James as now an apostle, he may have been led half unconsciously group, which, use of a phrase including the word apostle to describe the next referred however, still meant all who were apostles at the time of the event
mentioned Or without intention of comparison with any previously scarcely aware, person or group, Paul, long accustomed to the term apostle,
to.
372
indeed, of a time
GALATIANS
when the term was not in use, may have employed the all who were, at the time of the event referred to, members of the company which at the time of writing had long been known as the apostles. In itself the phrase would not tell us who these were. But in view of the other evidence we should naturally assume them to have been the Twelve, or rather, perhaps, the eleven. It
expression "all the apostles" of
may, indeed, be asked why, if the expression "all the apostles" is of identical content with "the Twelve," the apostle should have used the two instead of repeating the same phrase. A confident answer can not perhaps
this question, but instinctive desire for variety of expression combined with the intervention of the reference to the five hundred and to James may have been sufficient to lead him to say "to all the apostles," rather than "again to the Twelve." * It seems impossible, therefore, to deduce from this passage any definite indication as to who constituted the apostles at the time of the epiphany which Paul here relates, or indeed that there was at that time any definite group of persons called apostles. Read in the light of the other evidence
it
be given to
company
of Jesus' disciples,
known
itself
much later as the Twelve, and afterwards known as the apostles. This passage
i
does not define the extent to which these two companies were identical,
but leaves unanswered the question whether they were mutually exclusive,
partly identical or wholly so.
sistent with all the evidence.
The
last
view
is,
The
attitude towards
them renders
is
those
whom
made
and Junias as
i%iar)[ioi ev
This
is
generally understood to
mean
who were
men
company and,
like them, were apparently itinerant missionaries. The apostleship oj Paul. With the conversion of Saul and his adop-
by others
that
title
enters
but
its
It evidently passed from which they were a part, to him, not the application to him became the occasion of no little conof its history.
company
of
troversy.
* It is
Kom.
the interpreter
we should read niXLv; but in the absence can scarcely avail himself of this way of escape.
of
'AnOSTOAOS
Acts
131-2 relates
373
that the
two
of their
company of prophets and teachers in the church own number for a specific task, which
though not sharply defined was apparently that of carrying the gospel parallel between into regions as yet unevangelised. There is a manifest (Acts 1^^-^'), this act and that of the one hundred and twenty in Jerusalem and it is not improbable that in this event we have an important step in the the creation of an apostolate not authorised from Jerusalem or by and Twelve. But as in the case of Matthias, so in the case of Barnabas
Saul, there
of
is
appointment, but only a subsequent reference to them as apostles by the in the Acts author, and no distinct evidence that those who took part Antioch incident looked upon it at the time as having any important bearing on the development of an office or the definition of a term. For direct evidence as to the origin of Paul's assurance of his
tleship
own
apos-
an apostle, we must depend upon his ovm letters. In 2 Cor. 8" and Phil. 2" he uses the term, with This evidence limitations, in the general sense of messenger or delegate. fundamental idea of the term, is valuable as showing what was for Paul the but it in no way obscures the fact that Paul applied the term to a certain limited number of persons, including himself and the Twelve, in a more
and
ipecific sense.
2
In the salutation of the Thessalonian letter (or letters if Thes. be from Paul), he couples with his own name those of Silvanus and Timothy, and adds no title, but in i Thes. 2 he uses the term dTc6aTo7.o? Thessalonica, of himself, or of himself and one or more of his companions at
in such a
way
as to imply that to be an apostle of Christ carried with it be supported by his converts; it is impos-
say with certainty which is the implication of sv ^apei. In he affirms his own apostleship with emphasis, and thereafter in the salutation of all the Pauline letters, except Phil, and Phm. the term In all these (i%6axoXoq is closely joined to the personal name IlaaXoq.
Gal.
1 1-2
cases the
force.
title
term
i^
is
and
is
evidently of titular
Gal.
and
context also
make
it
that the
was disputed, and scarcely less so that the ground of objection was To title and appointment had not been authorised in Jerusalem. this his defence was not that he had been duly appointed, but that such appointment was unnecessary, and that he had never sought it, having
received his apostleship
by
In
Cor. 91 Paul
couples the assertion of his apostleship with the affirmation that he had seen Jesus our Lord, evidently referring to the post-resurrection vision
spoken of in
Cor. 15'.
As
element of the conditions of apostleship implied in Acts i"inthian passage suggests another.
.
the Cor-
It
is
he conceded that such a vision of the risen Jesus was a necessary condition of apostleship or, only since he fulfilled it, preferred simply to affirm the
374
GALATIANS
fact and so avoid controversy on this point. On the one side, the general type of his thought, his emphasis on the purely spiritual as against the phys-
would favour the view that he did not attach vital importance to his having seen Jesus.* But, on the other hand, the great significance which he evidently attached to this particular experience, and his
ical in religion,
apparently careful avoidance of the ascription of apostleship to other missionaries of Christianity, such as Timothy, Titus, and Apollos, point to the conclusion that he included ability to bear personal testimony to the resur-
among the conditions of apostleship. We may concede that his view would have been more thoroughly self-consistent if he had attached no importance to this condition; but it seems on the whole probable, nevertheless, that he did include it in the necessary qualifications of an apostle. If this is the case it was implied in the view both of Paul and his opporection
many
who
fulfilled this
generation. But it is probable that this consideration was deprived of any importance by their expectation of the consummation of the age by the
coming of the Lord. Cf. Mt. ig^s, The mention by Paul 3. The false apostles.
of
those
whom
he,
in
Cor.
II",
characterises
as
"false apostles
[(j^suSaxoaxoXot],
deceitful
of course,
workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ," though adding, none to the list of those whom he accounted apostles, throws
The
what
letter
is
in
chaps.
10-13
of
commonly known
Cor.
shows
had been
probably does, to the same persons, it suggests that these persons brought with them letters of commendation, and that not improbably their claim to the apostleship was supported by
little later) refers,
(written a
as
it
We have no means of knowing whether these men had been Matthias was, to fill a vacancy in the original Twelve, or were an addition to the Twelve. In any case, Paul's objection to their apostleship was not based on the method of their appointment, but on the spirit and purpose of the work they were doing. The expression "false apostles,"
these letters.
elected, as
however, confirms what the evidence previously examined implies, that to be an apostle was a definite fact. In other words, while neither Paul nor, so far as we know, the Jerusalem Christians were insisting on the maintenance of the number twelve, the term apostle still conveyed a definite
meaning;
it
to
fThe
the
assertion
frequently
i
made
(see,
e.
Robinson in
HDB,
art.
"Apostle," and
number
of the apostles
was
The
expression
'AnOSTOAOS
2
375
the qualifications which
among
knowledge of him in
and Paul lacked was a certain In all probability this was in part at least personal This view is in some measure confirmed his lifetime.
refers to the
U XpiaxoCi) and g\ if, as is probable, the former passage same persons, or at least to the same movement, as 2 Cor. 10' II", and if i Cor. 91 conveys a veiled and passing allusion to that party, with which the apostle for some reason did not, in this letter, wish to deal openly.* Cf. on the general situation Weizs. Ap. Zeit. p. 299, E. T.
by
I
Cor.
i^^ (lyo)
1 354,
and Sanday
The time when these men set up their claim to be apostles is indicated only by the mention of them in the letter of Paul which is embedded in what is known as 2 Cor. This would point to a date in the early fifties as the time when they were in Corinth. How much sooner they claimed or were given the title of apostle we have no means of knowing. Whether elected to fill a vacancy in the number of the Twelve or added to that number, they
may have
title.
acquired the
been accounted apostles in Jerusalem even before Paul His subsequent denial of the title to them, when he
discovered the spirit in which they were working, does not exclude the posSuch evidence as sibility of his having at first accounted them apostles
however, would suggest that these were relatively late additions of those who bore the title of apostles. In Rev. 2"^ reference is also had to false apostles in the church at Ephesus, men who call themselves apostles and are not. Whatever the point of view
there
is,
to the
company
and whatever the test by which the Ephesians tried them and discovered that they were false, the passage tesdesirable. tifies to the fact that to be an apostle was something definite and Reference has already been made 4. The usage of the latter part of Acts.
word "apostle"
It
remains only to observe that while in chap. 14 Paul and Barnabas are spoken of as apostles, the word occurs elsewhere only in chaps. 15 and 16, and al-
ways
in the phrase
ol
dxoaxoXot xal
[ol]
shows only that there was difference of opinion as to who were apostles. It suggests no the term indefiniteness as to what it was to be an apostle, but quite the contrary, for had been of quite indefinite meaning (signifying, e. g., only itinerant preacher), Paul would have had no motive to refuse it to the emissaries from Jerusalem, or, it may be added, to claim
it
Nor does the term of itself exclude definiteness of number; since an agreethat there could be but twelve apostles, would only have given acuteness to the political question who were the genuine, who the spurious. Cf. the case of delegates to a expresconvention. Probably on neither side was the number definitely restricted, but the
for himself.
e. g.,
ment,
would not of itself prove this. not improbable that in 2 Cor. s> also there is an allusion to the same emphasis of apostle's Paul's opponents on personal knowledge of Jesus; in which case, however, the phrase iyui^iKa/xev Kara o-ap/ca Xpiarov must be taken as a general expression inclusive of estimation of Christ on any basis of the physical and external, which estimation he now
* It
is
abjures, whatever
may have
37^
leading
GALATIANS
men
of the church assembled in Jerusalem.
While the epistles of Paul recognise the apostleship of James, and of Andronicus and Junias, and testify that others also claimed the title, which though denied by Paul was apparently conceded by others, the book of Acts makes no mention of any
of these as apostles, but restricts the of Paul
5.
and Barnabas.
of
Summary
word
New
of the
in the several
circle,
Testament usage.T}\ese facts, respecting the usage N. T. books, suggest that the term was first
used of a narrower
limited
composed
of the
number
They do not clearly indicate when the term was first applied to the Twelve except that it was at some time before the writing of Galatians. They do not show clearly whether the term was first
of a narrower.
applied to the Twelve only and afterwards to others, or whether it first arose as a title of a larger group including the Twelve. They suggest that while
the Twelve were at first the eminent body among the followers of Jesus, and were known simply as the Twelve, the raising of James, and in a lesser measure of his brethren, to a place of influence in the Christian community only second, and in the case of James scarcely second, to that of the Twelve,
gradually led to the partial displacement of the numerical term, the Twelve, by the more descriptive and honorific term "apostles." Not improbably from the beginning, this term included all the Twelve, but also James. Eventually all who like these were regarded as founders of Christianity
were called apostles. C/. below on the function of the apostle. For this use of the term there was doubtless some preparation in earlier usage.
This
or
may have
D^n-'Si:'
not as a
been furnished by the use of some such term as dicoaxoXot title but as a term descriptive of the function of the
Subsequently, doctrinal differences led to the denial of the aposcharacter of some of these later additions to the apostolic circle, each party denying the title to those whose views or character they disapproved,
tolic
title of the Twelve. The book and a circle of thought in which it was held that in the early days the Twelve were the only apostles and there was caution in recognising the legitimacy of any addition to that number except Paul and Barnabas Of the persistence in other circles cf
Twelve.
another point of view, something will be said later in discussing the usage
of the AiSax^r).
If this hypothesis be accepted as probable, we should reconstruct the history of the use of the term "apostle" in what we call the apostolic age
somewhat as follows: In the midst of his ministry Jesus gathered about him a company of twelve disciples who companied with him, learning from him as pupils, and sharing in his work as his representatives. The earliest
name that we can discover for this company was "the Twelve," a title which they not improbably bore even in Jesus' lifetime. Assured by their visions
'AnOSTOAOS
of
377
the vacancy caused by the
it
him
after his
death that he
it
still
lived,
was, and to
They conceived
and
to be their function to
message and teaching which they had received through their associaThey were not ecclesiastical officers but bearers of a mestion with him. They continued for some time, precisely how long we can not tell, sage. With them were early associated the to be known as "the Twelve." brothers of Jesus, of whom James was especially prominent, and these grew in influence. James being a witness of the resurrection and a man of weight and influence, assumed functions quite like those of the Twelve. This fact gradually led to the adoption of the term ''apostles," which may or
testify to the resurrection of Jesus
of Jesus' life
may
title of all
who
Paul
vision,
become a preacher of the gospel message, as he conceived of it, to the Gentiles. This was for him a divine commission and he unhesitatingly appropriated to himself the title and function of an apostle of Christ, which he conceived himself to hold by direct divine
himself called
to
by God
authority, subject in no
way
who were
apostles
before him.
for some years, there went out into the which he conceived to be his and into the churches which he had founded, certain men, perhaps by authorisation from Jerusalem, who denied Paul's apostleship, apparently either on the ground that he had not been a personal companion of Jesus, or had not been commissioned from
When
territory
Jerusalem, or both, and no doubt claimed for themselves what they denied
These men Paul in turn denounced as false apostles. had grown up two contrasted views of the conditions of apostleship, having much in common but sharply difEerentiated on cerBoth parties were agreed that to be an apostle was sometain points. thing very definite, and, as will appear later, were not widely divided as
to him.
It
is
of the
what the function of an apostle was. Of the existence of a loose sense term as applied to apostles of Christ (2 Cor. 8" and Phil. 2 do not come into account here), either as the only meaning or parallel with a The difference of stricter sense, the books of N. T. give no evidence.
to
The party
of
An apostle must position which Acts i"- " takes respecting the Twelve. have known Jesus personally, must be able to bear witness to the resurrecPaul denied the tion, and must have been commissioned from Jerusalem. necessity of personal acquaintance with Jesus on earth, or of any commisOn the basis of his Damascus vision he claimed sion whatever from men.
to
Other condi-
378
GALATIANS
and apostleship came
How many of those who were eligible to apostleship under either of the two views eventually came to bear the name "apostle" it is impossible to state. We can definitely name only about twenty, but quite possibly it was given to all who having been sharers in the epiphanies of Jesus afterwards assumed positions of responsibility in the church, especially perhaps if they became itinerant preachers and founders of churches. 6. The function of an apostle. For the interpretation of the epistles of Paul the question what he conceived to be the function of an apostle is of much more importance than the number of those to whom he conceived the title to be rightly applicable. Most of the evidence bearing on this point has been cited incidentally in the preceding sections, but may now be assembled and brought to bear on this phase of the subject.
In
Tva
Mk.
3"'
[xst'
Tcl:
*'
we
xatl
dtxoaxdXouq
<iv6[i.aaEv,
uatv
aiJTo6<; /.tjpuaastv
This passage was evidently written or took its was believed that Jesus himself created the apostolate and gave to its members the name apostles. It shows that at that time it was believed that the primary purpose for which Jesus chose the Twelve was that they should be his personal companions and helpers Learning from him by companionship with him, they were in his work. to share in his work by going out to announce his message and to do such things as he had himself been doing {cf. Mk. g'^). Though this gospel was written long after the death of Jesus and when the Twelve had long been exercising a function largely created by conditions that arose after his death, and though the expression, "whom he also named apostles," probably shows the influence of later thought, yet with the exception of this phrase the horizon of the passage is wholly that of Jesus' lifetime, and there is in it no suggestion of any work to be done after Jesus' death.* This fact is strong evidence that the substance of the passage comes from a very early date, and embodies the recollection of the Twelve of their
h.<^ikXkEKv
present shape
when
it
But though this original appointment suggested no function extending beyond the period of the personal presence of Jesus, his death resulted not in the dissolution of the group but in the taking on of a new function. Those who had been his chosen companions in his lifetime became the witnesses of his resurrection. See above on Acts i"-". The insistence upon personal companionship mth Jesus, as a condition of membership in the body in the new period of its history, was doubtless in part because of
*
This
is
and
eKjSdAAeii',
not, of course, in that they denote present time, but continued or repeated action, naturally,
S)cn.v fxer
avrov.
Had
w<7ii'
the thought
iJ-tT
been of a single subsequent sending out, following upon the period of the the aorist an-oo-TeiAjj must certainly have been used.
auroO,
'AnOSTOAOS
the resurrection.
379
the relation between such companionship and ability to be a witness to But the inclusion of the phrase "from the baptism of
indicates that the bearing of such testimony
John"
full
duty or
They must
also
testify to the
deeds and words of Jesus before his death and even from the beginning of his public ministry, and carry forward his work as they only could do who knew him well. On the other hand witnessing to the resurrection
was not an end in itself, but the means by which men were to be persuaded The function of the apostle is therefore to accept him as Lord and Christ.
comprehensively the winning of
men
and building them up in such faith through the story of his life and teaching. There is thus a clear affinity between the thought of the two passages Mk. 31* and Acts i"-^*. The companionship with Jesus which in Mk. is a part of the purpose of the choice of the Twelve
mony
to his resurrection,
body; and the function and makes prominent the testimony to the resurrection, is in substance the same as that set forth in Mk. with only such modification as the death and subsequent epiphanies of Jesus, convincing them of his resurrection and messiahship, would
becomes
in Acts a condition of
membership
in the
of the group,
though new
in that it includes
Whether at the early period in v/hich this conception Twelve took shape they were already known as apostles, or, as suggested above, this name was only later applied to them, the passage in Acts shows that by the time of the writing of Acts the definition of function had become attached to the term "apostle," and there is no special reason to question that this took place in the process by which the term apostle was carried over to the Twelve or to that larger company of
naturally call for.
of the function of the
conveyed by implica-
than by any express statement. The important passage I Cor. 1228 indicates the place of high importance which he attached to it, and shows that he regarded apostleship rather as a commission conferred by divine endowment than an ecclesiastical office to which one was appointed
rather
or elected by
exxXTjat'c?
men
1^).
local, t^
any
local
church, can not be assumed in view of Paul's use of exxXTjaca in the larger sense in Gal. i^^ i Cor. 15' Phil. 3' Col. i^s- ", and is against all other usage
of the
word ixoaioXo^.
Tt
is still
more clear that in Eph. 4" the writer is But neither of these passages gives a
The evidence
that
Paul regarded first-hand testimony to the resurrection as a part of the work That the preachof the apostle has already been discussed {cf. 2 above). ing of the gospel was a part of it is clearly implied not only in such passages
as Gal. ii
I
Cor.
i^'
Rom.
i\ but in practically
all
apostleship.
But
own
apostle-
380
GALATIANS
Not every
Limiting his
to fields
it
own
intention of reproselytis-
own conception of Christianity converts already made by others ID" Rom. 15"), and equally denied the right of others to attempt We infer that according to win his converts to their views (Gal. i^- ' 512). to Paul's conception the work of an apostle of Christ was that of planting
Christianity.
Endowed by
signs of
testify to
attested
cess in
for
an apostle,
viz., ability to
g'^
Cor.
possessed of a message
which no
authority (Gal.
ii- "
"), it
not to follow in the footsteps of others, nor to build along the lines deter-
mined by other men's foundations, but himself to announce the gospel message, to found churches, and thus to fix the lines of the development
of the
new
religion, or the
new type
Disclaiming,
indeed, lordship over the faith of his converts as against the working of
own
own
own
Paul did not hesitate on the one side to reprove, exhort, and even to com-
mand
2
(i
Thes.
4^!;
cf.
Thes.
3<-
Cor.
etfreq.), and,
whether true or
false
To be an
apostle of
on the other, utterly to deny the right of others, apostles, to assume such authority over these churches. Christ was in Paul's thought to be divinely commis-
by
be independent of
right
human
authority.*
It
and duty to exercise it among the Gentiles, thus practically determining the character of Gentile Christianity as far as his work and influence extended, that Paul steadfastly claimed for himself.
apostleship held
Lacking any correspondingly definite expression of the conception of by the other apostles, we can not say to what extent they
definition of the function of
is
an apostle. It which
of the apostles as a whole might be defined (cf. Haupt, Zum Verstdndnis des But since this is the work of im N. T., p. 135) as the founding of the church. no single man, one could not from Paul's point of view give this as the definition of the function of the apostle (sing.) without the addition of a limiting phrase defining the scope and Yet neither, territory within which the individual apostle was divinely commissioned to act. from Paul's point of view, was the founding of the church committed to any body of men Whether it be due to the difference of judgment between to be achieved by them as a body.
The work
Apostolats
himself and others whose apostleship he was nevertheless unwilling to deny, or to inherent
individualism, the apostle held at
theirs,
any rate that to him was given his task and to the others which each was to accomplish, with recognition of the other's rights and duties, but not co-operatively as a duty laid on them all jointly.
'AnosTOAOs
underlies Acts
i^'-^s,
3S1
in respect to the
is
by reason
conception of a college
was well adapted to give rise to conof apostles would have called for cor-
common
least
task.
But Paul's
his
individ-
he at
had
own commission
from God, and was responsible, therefore, to God and not to his fellowapostles, could scarcely fail to bring him into conflict with those who held
the other conception.
tleship of the others
and maintain
own
mooted questions
own
field.
The
pillar apostles,
on the other hand, without apparently denying his apostleship, did not at Later, first recognise that it required them not to interfere with his work. they conceded this in theory, but did not steadfastly conform to it in practice; while the more extreme members of the Jewish Christian party denied
Paul's apostleship altogether.
The Twelve, according to Mk. 3", were to go out But Acts i"- " makes no mention of itinerancy. The
i
yet
had frequent occasion to change their home than to be away from home. Paul, we know, was in "journeyings oft." Having no family he may perhaps be said to have had no home. Manifestly, also, the witness to the resurrection must go where they are to whom the testimony is to be borne, and the founder of churches can not remain seated in one place. Yet prolonged residence in a given place might be necessary to the accomplishment of a given apostle's task, and no definite Like the modern mislimit could be set to the period of such residence. sionary bishop, the apostle must be where his work called him, yet not necessarily always journeying. James the brother of our Lord was never, so far as our evidence shows, an itinerant preacher, nor does it seem probable that any one who, in the discharge of his function as a founder of Christianity, should find it expedient to take up permanent residence in a certain place, would on that account have been denied the title of apostle. Still less does the evidence of the N. T. permit us to suppose that itinerancy
rather in the sense that they
would
of itself
an apostle.
Nor was
modern term,
"missionary."
382
IV.
GALATIANS
CHRISTIAN USAGE IN THE SECOND CENTURY.
in the well11,
To
of the
word "apostle" hereinbefore set forth, the use of the word in the AtSax^ twv owSc/.a 'AtcoctoXwv, chap. at first sight to interpose an objection:
known passage
seems
But concerning the prophets and apostles, so do ye according to the ordinance of the Let every apostle, when he comes to you, be received as the Lord; but he shall not abide more than a single day, or if there be need, the second; and if he abide three days he is a false prophet. And when he departs let the apostle receive nothing save bread, until he find shelter. But if he ask for money he is a false prophet.
gospel.
The
first injunction manifestly has reference to Mt. lo^": "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."
And
Twelve.
it is
was deemed
necessary to prohibit their remaining more than two days at utmost in any
one church, or receiving anything more than the food necessary to sustain them to their next stopping place. Apparently, therefore, the passage
class
were
still
so connected in
thought with the Twelve that the sentence which the gospel applies to them
living
when the still members of the class had so far degenerated as to be regarded with suspicion and treated with extreme caution. Those to whom the term is
could be applied to the then existing class of apostles, but
here applied are itinerant prophets, living off the churches, but prohibited
from receiving any money or subsisting upon any church for more than two days at a time. Violation of these rules proves them false prophets, but apparently does not deprive them of the title "apostles." It should be borne in mind that this is the only extant passage in early Christian literature in which any such use of the term occurs. The term is found six times in Clem. Rom., once in so-called 2 Clement, 16 times in Ignatius, five times in the Epistle to Diognetus, five times in Hermas, and once in Barnabas (see Goodspeed, Index Patristicus). All of these instances are in line with the usage which from Acts we should infer prevailed in the Clement latter portion of the apostolic age, most of them very clearly so. of Rome, Barnabas, and Ignatius know of no apostles save the Twelve and Paul. In Clem. Rom. 47^ Apollos is expressly distinguished from the apostles: "For ye were partisans of apostles and of a man approved in their Equally clear is the usage of 2 Clem, and Mart. Pol. The usage sight." of Hermas is less clear and may perhaps be more nearly akin to that of the middle period of the apostolic age. He speaks once of forty apostles and teachers (Sim. 9. 15^ and twice of apostles and teachers, without mention-
*An02T0A02
ing their
383
number
(Sim.
9. 165; 25^).
world and having fallen asleep preached also to those that had fallen asleep
before them.
The
living
Of
Hermas makes no mention. From Ep. ad Diogn. ii*: "Having become a disciple of apostles I came forward as a teacher of the
gentiles,"
this writing
it
word
has
is
used of
men
it
But the
(ii'>
instances in which
its
la'- '),
century,
makes
more
likely that
it
intended to say that he accepted the teachings of the apostles, not that he
lit-
were survivors of the company of hundred witnesses of the resurrection whom Paul mentions in i Cor. 15', but they had certainly ceased to exercise the functions which in an earlier period were the characteristic marks of an apostle, and which afterwards were regarded retrospectively as the signs of an apostle. In no strict sense can the use of the word in the AtBaxifj be regarded as the survival of a primitive usage. Of the three ideas, preaching the gospel, founding the church, itinerancy, it was the first and second, not the first and third, which entered into the earliest use of the term as a designation of a class in the Christian community; and of these the second was what constituted the distinctive mark of an apostle; itinerancy was apparently neither a constant
sible that the persons here referred to
five
A
it is
of the usage
is
that
local
term was applied. The conflict over the apostleship, reflected in the Galatian and Corinthian letters, led on the Jewish-Christian side, possibly on the Gentile-Christian also, to the designation and sending out of men as apostles, first, probably, of those only who had known Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards, perhaps, when no more such remained, of others. The name apostle thus became the designation of a class of itinerant Christian prophets which, for reasons no longer known, in time so degenerated that strenuous rules were laid down But this was, after all, to prevent their unduly annoying the churches. a relatively sporadic use of the term.* The main stream of usage in Christian circles remained the same. It was still commonly used of the founders
we catch a glimpse
whom
it
* C/.
the usage prevailing at about the same time in Jewish circles, mentioned under I above.
384
of the church, those
GALATIANS
men
of the
first
who put
cessors.
their
religious
suc-
II.
The antecedents
on the one
side, in
in the religious
of the N. T. designation of God as Father are found, an ancient usage of the Greek world, and on the other thinking of the Hebrews.
I.
CLASSICAL USAGE.
is
As
early as
Homer Zeus
designated as
TcaT'Jjp
dtvSpwv ts 9euv,
and in
225;
tcov
dxavTwv
On
see
Sic.
of gods
title marked him as the progenitor of the race and men, or emphasised his authority and watch-care over them, Zinzow, "ZeCk; xaTYjp und 6c6q," in ZkWkL., 1882, pp. 189/. Diod.
5. 72^
Stcc
t^jv
^povTc'Sa xal
T"f)v
eCvotav
t?)v
zlq
axavxat;,
Ss
xal
xb
Boxelv
wcxep
apxTQybv
elvat
xou
yevouq
xwv
dvBpwxwv.
Cf. also Plut. Apoph. reg. 15. Jos. Ant. 4. 262 (8") speaks rather under the influence of his contact with the Greek world than of his Hebrew
training
when he
calls
God
xax'Jjp
xou xavxoq.
II.
The
O. T. writers speak of
men
often enough to
literal or
make
it
physical sense, or to
employed the term not in any designate a relation of God to all men, but
to ascribe to
him
in
men
or to a certain people
human
The
rela-
sometimes authority, but especially love and watchcare. See Deut. 32^ Isa. 6316 Jer. $*> " 31^ Mai. i 2 Sam. 7'* i Chr. 17"; The reference to creation in Mai. 2^'> is quite cf. Deut. i4 Hos. iii Ps. 2^
is
mind
it is
to
be noticed that
it is
In Ps.
2^ the
term "beget"
relationship.
is
is
itself,
em-
When God
wholly religious, designating God's choice of the nation, and his love for it, and watch-care over it (Deut. 326-14)^ and the designation of him as Father
of the
King
of Israel or of the
significance.
it
it is
clearly
III.
In the later Jewish writers the term retains the same general significance
in reference to the nation, present or future (Tob. 13*
385
as Father of the
2"").
God
Messiah do not seem to occur; for Test. XII Patr. Jud. 242 speaks of God not as Father of the Messiah, but as the Holy Father (see also Levi i8), and Levi 17" employs the term only by way of comparison; the Ps. Sol, On (1738) designate the Lord as the King, not the Father of the Messiah.
the other hand, the designation of
2i6-i:
God
Wisd.
if
"He
God
is
his father.
Let
us see
his
us try
is
what
shall befall
will
him
in the
end of
<
his hfe.
For
the righteous
of the
man
God's son, he
he
will deliver
him out
hands of
his adversaries."
and Bous.
IV.
432/.
NEW TESTAMENT
USAGE.
These facts make it evident that the N. T. teachers and writers found the term ready to their hands both in the thought and vocabulary of the Greek world and especially in their inheritance from their Hebrew ancestry; in the former as a designation of
God's relationship to
men
in general
forms
in
N. T.
is
such as to
necessary to give
attention to these before considering the precise content of the term in the
N. T. books.
A.
N. T.
The term
1.
xat-rip is
Without the
article
it
so joined with
it
as to constitute with
(a)
compound
appellative.
22
23^ Jn.
In the vocative (or nominative used as a vocative), alone: Lk. ii' II" 12"- 28 171. 6. 11. 21. 24, 25. with other appellatives in appowith
"2.
sition
it:
Mt.
ii^^
Lk.
lo-i'^;
Mt. 26".
(b)
Cor.
6^^.
it
With the
article,
it
as
to constitute with
(a)
compound
33s 421,
appellative.
ii26. 27
2436 281'
i^">
i4'
Lk.
Jn. lis
23^
and
freq. in Jn.
Acts
(b)
"my
"thy father": Mt. 721 10^2, 33 1127 ^2^0 2023 253^ 2623. " Mk. 8'8 Lk. 2^' io22 Jn. 5" S^' 1025. 29, and freq. in Mt. and Jn. is 1020 29 1343 y^k. 6" (c) Limited by a genitive referring to men: Mt. 68.
father," "his father,"
J250.
32;
no exx. in Jn. 25
386
(d)
544, 57 gie. 18
GALATIANS
Limited by a participle or prepositional phrase: Lk. ii" Jn. 5"
i2*\
Limited by a genitive referring to Jesus, and an adjective, participle, or prepositional phrase: Mt. 7" lo"- " is^" 15" i6>^ iS*"- " i'- .
(e)
(f)
"
6^'
^*-
i*-
711
Mk.
ii.
Joined with
0s6<;
to
(a)
word hav-
ing the article: not found in the gospels or Acts; frequent in the Pauline
epistles,
fj^xoiv
Rom. i^
i*
Cor.
i' 2
i
Cor.
Gal.
Eph.
i'
6"
Phil. i2
I
Thes.
Jn.
^
i> 2
Thes. i^
Tim.
i* 2
Tim.
i^ Tit. i^
Phm.
Pet. I* 2 Pet.
(b)
1 17 2
Jude K
joined
by
xat
article,
or Acts;
xxl
Rom.
15",
Tiaczipa
I*
'lYjaoiJ
XpicTOu.
Cor. 15^4
Cor.
i'
11"
Eph. i3 520 Phil. 420 i Thes. i^ 3". " Jas. i" i Pet. i' Rev. i. 4. In some eight or ten passages the words xaT-^p and 636;; are associated in other ways which are slight modifications of those already named. In
Gal.
five of
In Col.
^T^i read
tw
Osoj xa-rp;',
FG
on the whole against the insertion of QzC). In Jn. 6" and Eph. i'^ b 6s6q and 6 xaxfjp do not constitute a compound appellative, but stand in appothe relation being such as we commonly express in English by the word "namely." In Jn. 8" 6 Qz6q stands in similar relation with dq xaxTjp, and in i Cor. S^ h xax-^p is in apposition with slq Qzoq. In Eph. 4* we have elq Qzhq xal xax-?]? xtivxwv, which is simply the common form 3 b, with the numeral slq replacing the definite article. In Mt. 6 6 Qehq h xaxTjp is found in ^5*B Sah., but most authorities omit b Qeoq. It is bracketed by WPI. Other editors do not admit it even to the margin. In 2 Thes. 2> 6 Qihq b xaxT)p is read by most authorities. The 6 before Qeoq is omitted by BD*K 33 and bracketed by WH. Before xaxrip it is doubtless genuine, though generally omitted by the Syrian authorities. Apparently we have here an expression unique in N. T.
sition,
xo) Sso)
xaxp{ (Col.
i 31^),
[6]
Qzhq b xaxiQp
Thes.
2>),
elq
good textual
evidence, have either the form Qehq xaxrjp (without article or connective)
or 6 Qzhq
xczl
xaxTQp (with
both
article
and connective).
The
first of
387
by
the
list
two
and
Pet.
it is
i')
after a prepositional
f};jLa)v,
phrase.
In nine
twenty-one instances
Cor.
i 2
limited
(i
cf.
Cor.
i
i^
Phm.
group
In
Thes. i\ but
the
contra Gal. i^
Thes. i^.
In no instance in this
referring to Christ.
is
compound
(3
appellative followed
by a genitive
all
b above)
is
found in
may
a decided preference for the shorter form after prepositions. Either form may be used in the genitive or dative, but only the longer form occurs in the nominative or accusative. Either form may
is
be limited by
is
ii'^ioy
by a genitive referring to Christ. These facts show that the difference between the two
limited
is
expressions
is
one
each
preferably used.
it is
article
xaxifip
to be borne in
mind
is
(i)
any
commonly made
Rob.
to the
p. 795,
that Qzoq and b Qeoq are used without distinction; the regular designation
of
is
God
is
Qeoq* and the omission of the article indicates that the term
comes under some other it is not due to the presence or absence of a limiting genitive; (3) that some compound names show a tendency to omit the article more freely than the single terms which compose the compound; this is true both of such names as St'txwv Iliipoq, composed of two proper names and of those like 'lYjaouq XptcToq, which are in part appellative; it is apparently true of Oebq
qualitative, or
much more
rarely indefinite, or
general rule for the use of nouns without the article; (2) that
jcaTTjp,
is
(4)
that prep-
ositional
This tendency
is
illustrated
by
sv xup((p
and
ten-
It is apparently the
latter
tendencies
that
xaTpoi;.
The
dency to omit the article with compound names (in this case amounting to an almost invariable rule) excludes tou 6eou Tza-zpoq; the preference for the non-articular form in prepositional phrases leads to the use of diub GeoO -Kcxxpbq rather than (x%h tou 0coG xal nzaxpoq. Cf. 1 Thes. i' 3" Jas. i". The fact of most importance for the interpreter is that the omission of
*The English use of "Lord" and "God"- interestingly reverses the Greek use of /cvpios and 6e6<; in N. T. The Greek regularly says 6 5e6s, but in using Kvpiog of God usually employs it without the article. In English, on the other hand, we say " the Lord," but " God " (without the article). The usual Greek for "the Lord God" is Kv'ptos 6 Oeds. Cf. Sl.Qn.
388
the article with the the expression.
GALATIANS
compound
appellative does not affect the meaning of
i^
is
(i)
men
is,
or of Christ,
The
Cor.
(ii)
i'
11" Eph.
i')
and
therefore, not
improbable here,
Yet
to a
when
xax-^p,
referring to
if
God
is
joined
by
v.xi
name
Cor.
i"
God
Cor.
as Father of
i 2
men.
i
of sixteen, viz., in
2
Rom.
i' i
Thes. 1*3"
-fjawv is
Phm.
Tim.
i* 2
Tim.
i''
Tit. i*
it is
probably to be supplied in thought from the context; the probability is Gal. i^ Eph. 6" i Thes. i^ 2 Thes. i,
which no genitive
T^;i.a)v.
is
is
to be supplied in thought
xa-rr)?
(iii)
used of
God without
genitive limitation
i
and
is
name
of Jesus
(Rom. 8"
Col. 3"), there are several in which xaxiip unequivocally designates the
relation of
of Christ,
Phil.
God to men; none in which it certainly designates God as Father though several of them are usually so interpreted (esp. i Cor. 15" 2" Col. 3")- These facts make it clear that xaTTjp as a title of God is
by Paul
(it is
prevailingly used
of
God
to
men; and
especially that
when
0;bq xaTTjp
is
and xupioq
'iTjaou?
Father and Son to one another, but of their respective relations to men. See Rom. i^ i Cor. i 2 Cor. i', etc., esp. i Cor. 8. (iv) At the same
time
it
in the
two passages
in
God
implies a causal relation between such sonship and the possession of the
spirit of
4^-'
Rom.
8'5-").
It
is
therefore
God
is
to Christ
and
his fatherhood to
men, and
it
may
is
the persons to
by
x,al
xupfcu
xu?{ou
XptaTou,
as in Gal.
it
is
grammatically possible
xa{ to
Jj'^div
that
'Itqjou
by
it
limit
this is
is
not in fact the case, but that xa( joins xupfou to OsoG
it
with
governed by d%6
is
made
by two
facts:
is
(i)
ception,
God
nowhere unambiguously
xczl
when
0co.
xaxp.
is
itself in
the genitive,
(ii)
Though
there
is
in the
un-
389
doubtedly genuine letters of Paul no so perfectly clear example as that in Jj-o.wv lim2 Thes. iS ev Geo) xaxpl -fj-^wv xal xupt'w 'lr,GoO Xpiaxw, where iting Tcaxpt is followed not by y.up. 'Ir^a. Xp. in the genitive but by a dative,
yet such other examples as Gal.
i^ i
Thes.
i^
sentence removes
all
syntactical ambiguity,
titles
show that
designating
God and
Christ together
a preposition, not to join the latter with rjixcov, referring to men. On the question whether when the form b Qehq xal xaTTjp is followed by T)[xa)v (Gal. i* Phil. 4^ i Thes. i 3"- ") the genitive limits both 606?
and
Vulg.
uniformly by the ambiguous phrase "deus et pater noster." Weisz. usually reads, "GoU unser Vater," entirely ignoring the xai (in Sief. reads, "GoU der auch unser I Thes. iS "unser GoU tend Vater").
renders
Vater
Ell.,
ist,"
translation
followed
by
Alf.,
makes
r^ixd^
"God and
our Father."
Father."
Segond reads, "notre Dieu et Pere"; RV. "our God and The last is undoubtedly correct; the arguments advanced for
?)tJ.wv
The
is
Ell.,
whom
an
error;
of
is
is
whether referring to man or to the article; and the argument that 6 6s 6? of little weight in view of Paul's not infrexaTT)p,
quent use
6"
is
Thes.
2* 3' 2
b Osdq
Nor
the appeal
i',
made by
the phrase
because,
(Rom.
i^ i
Cor.
etc.) of
any weight,
first
the phrase being different, it is by no means certain that the relation of is, as shown above, ^[jLwv is the same, and, second, because the probability that Gsou xaxpo; is itself a compound name, the whole of which, as a unity
including both elements,
is
limited in thought
by
-fjii-wv.
Two
nouns joined
by
xai
common
some sense a unity. Even in the latter case, when the objects are distinct, and only closely joined in thought, a genitive, standing after either or before them both, commonly limits both. See Lk. 14" Phil, i^- " 21' Eph. 3^ i Thes. 2" 3' 2 Pet. i". Much more probably, therefore, would this be the case when the two nouns evidently designate the same person. The only fact that could suggest a restriction of the relation of a genitive after two such nouns to the second would be its
manifest unsuitableness to limit the
first.
Somewhat
Y];jLcov
'I-rjaou
XptaxoG
12 I
when standing
i'; cf.
after
(Rom.
15'
Cor.
Eph.
Pet.
2 -Cor. ii^i) is to
be understood as limiting
both nouns. The expression "God of our Lord Jesus" does not, indeed, occur in Paul {cf. Mk. 15'" Mt. 27^ Jn. 201^, but it can not be inferred from
390
this fact that
GALATIANS
Paul could not limit the compound appellative " God and Father " by a genitive referring to Jesus Christ, for neither does Paul use the phrase "Father of our Lord Jesus."
B.
xairrjp,
AS APPLIED TO GOD IN N.
its
T.
1.
The conception
writers.
N. T.
designate
God
all
as Father of
all,
upon
Nor
is
God
called
Heb. i2 7-, for the "we" of this passage apparently includes only Christians, or at most Jews and Christians. Only in Eph. 4*, with which Eph. 3" is seemingly in agreement in thought, does God seem definitely to be called Father of all, and even here it is not quite certain that
Father of
in
While, therefore,
it
may
be properly
N. T. writers believe in the universal fatherliness of God, because they ascribe to him a relationship to all men which may naturally be included under that term, yet from the point of view of the N. T. use of
words, the doctrine that
all,
God
is
the Father of
all is
definitely expressed,
if
at
shows that the conception of and in particular that of fellowship grounded in approval, that the N. T. writers were indisposed to use the term when the element of approval was not felt to be present.
cance; for
ethical elements of fatherhood
3.
The
designation of
God
as Father of all
who
believe in Jesus
2 c,
f;
is fre-
quent
in all parts of
N. T.
a,
b above.
While emphasising, especially when used in addressing God, the conception and watch care in which men may safely trust, yet by its all but universal restriction to use in relation to believers, and by the clear
of his love
God"
to those
who
are like
God
(Mt. 5) or who are led by his Spirit (Rom. Si*-!"), it is evident that the term carries with it the idea not only of benevolent love such as God has for the
world (Jn. 3) and as men are bidden to have for their enemies, but also such friendship and fellowship as is characteristic of the normal relation
his children.
The designation of God as the Father gospel, much less frequent in N. T. than
Father of believers, yet
it is
of Jesus
is,
the characterisation of
him
as
found often enough to show that it is a familiar thought to the N. T. writers. It is found four times in the Pauline epistles (Rom. 158 2 Cor. i 11" Eph. i'), is ascribed by the synoptic gospels to
391
once in Heb. (iS Jesus (see A. 2 b above), occurs very frequently in Jn., of where it is expressly based upon the O. T. passage concerning the Son T.aTqp David), in i Pet. 2 Jn. and Rev. In i Jn., as in the Gospel of John, 6
absolute frequently occurs in antithesis with
6 uloq,
erence
is
to
God
as Father of Christ.
N. T. usage
to other
of
on the one
side in
men
of
and speak
Father," and on the other, in that the ascription to him of carried with it the designation of God as his Father in the messiahship These Heb.^ i^). sense in which God was the Father of the Messiah (cf. esp. two conceptions have, indeed, a common root in the conception of God's
him
as
"my
whom
two ideas would probably be more present to early Christian thought than their common root. A comparison of the several books of N. T., with remembrance of the order of their development and of that of their
sources, especially of the synoptists
of the the two conceptions developed in the order named, the conception fatherhood of God as pertaining to Jesus in a unique sense or degree grad-
God
is
Father of
all
he approves, but even in its latest forms never wholly losing sight That " the of the basal idea of fatherhood as consisting essentially in love. Father loveth the Son and showeth him all things that he himself doeth," element of fatherhood. is still in the fourth gospel the fundamental In respect to the thought of Paul in particular, it is to be noted (a) that
whom
he used the same form of expression in reference to Jesus as in respect to Christians, viz., "God and Father of us," "God and Father of our Lord
of men Jesus Christ"; (b) that he expressly associated together the sonship by virtue of which they call God their Father and the sonship of Jesus,
making the possession of the Spirit of the Son the ground or the conse8i*-i Gal. 4^-') but quence of the possession of the spirit of sonship (Rom. in the expression, " the (c) that he did not apparently join the two together God and Father of us and of the Lord Jesus Christ " (d) that though employing the expression "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," and once (2 Cor. 11") "the God and Father of the Lord Jesus," he never used either "God of our Lord Jesus," or "Father of our Lord Jesus" alone; and
;
father(e) that he never enters into an exposition of the conception of the hood of God in relation to Christ, and in particular never associates it with any statement respecting the origin of Jesus. From these facts it seems
common with the Jewish writers of the late preChristian period and with early Christian thought, Paul understood the divine fatherhood in a purely ethical sense, and associated it closely with
necessary to infer that, in
the conception of the godhead
(Qsiozriq)
it is
itself,
so that
though one
may
more congenial
to say
392
Father."
GALATIANS
This conception of fatherhood holds in respect to God as the Father of Jesus also, and, indeed, especially in respect to him, God sustaining towards him in a pre-eminent degree those ethical relations which are
by the term Father, but having no relation to him as Father which can be thought of apart from the fact that he is God.
expressed
On
"Son
of
Titles
III.
TITLES
AND PREDICATES OF
JESUS
The
following
TT^joiiq.
(a)
Without the
Thes.
io
Rom.
32' 10' i
26" Mk.
etc.;
2
I
4Ha (not elsewhere in Paul); Mt. 141 2030 21'. '^ Jn. I". ", etc. Acts i^' 5">, etc. Heb. 2 3 6",
not found in pastoral
4't"^. t,
Jn.
2^2 51.
Rev.
epistles, or
and
With the
article:
Rom. 8"
i
Cor.
2>
nb Gal.
61^
Eph. 4"
Thes.
in all
Paul); Mt.
Mk. V* Lk.
4* Jn.
i', et freq.,
i
and
article:
Rom.
5*.
6^.
'
Gal.
i. 10,
etfreq.,
e. g.:
parts of N. T., except i Pet. See Mt. ae" (voc.) Mk. 9" Lk. 23* Jn. i 9 Acts 2" Heb. 36 gii- " i Pet, i" 2" 3I8 4'. " 510. k.
(b)
With the
i
article:
Rom.
1515,
7^
22.
93,
j^is j-s.
7,
19
jgis
j
i<
Qqj.
je, n,
5.
n gub
hj,
23,
j
9"
25.
io<-
i2
23b 2
Cor.
12.
i^ 2i< 3^ 4^ 510.
35,
913 lo'.
20
4.
i<
(txt.
29
i
unc.)
65 Phil.
20
nb
I
.^t.
^u, n.
^^ 31.
..
rj,
ij
s,
w,
24,
(txt. unc.)
" ^1
18
Col.
(txt. unc.)
(txt. unc.) 4 I
Thes.
28
other parts of N. T.
Thes. 3= (not elsewhere in Paul); less freq. in See Mt. i^^ 112 1620 2310 Mk. 8" Lk. 4" Jn. 7" 11" 20"
3* 2
Acts 2"
I
85
9"
173 i85.
26"
3'^ 5^ 6^
gi''. 's
n^s
.
to
Pet.
4"
51
Jn.
222 51 2
Jn.
Rev.
2" Eph.
i^o.
only.
b XptcjToq,
cate of Jesus
2335, 39 2425. <6
is
meaning "the Messiah," but not as a title or affirmed predifound in Mt. 2* 22" 245. 23 26" Mk. 1235 1321 Lk. 3>' 20" 22"
Jn.
l20. 26
27,
31,
42
jq24 j23<.
In a few passages
unusual
IS"; ^
titles
x?'-^^^^ is applied
to Jesus,
or limitations.
Thus:
Mk.
Lk.
920;
b xptarbt; auxou.
Acts
3^8 426
Rev. ii.
"A
* C/. Middleton, Use of the Article in Greek, edited by H. G. Rose, Appendix II (by Rose), Table showing the various Appellations of our blessed Lord." etc.
TITLES
3. K6pto<;.
bis,
393
25
(a)
is
12-
Without the
!'
Rom.
2^^
lo'
Cor.
7"^.
j;^
jqh
etc.
168.
It
'1.
Rom.
"
Cor. 7"a,
31,
Cor.
list is diffi-
reference
is
to
God
or Christ.
title
whether the It is rare in other parts of N. T. (Acts 2") of respectful address (Mt. S^. . , etc.).
14.
With the
710.
12
^5 nze.
27
Gal. i^\
Mk.
ii^
and
its
repetition in
Mt.
but instances are much more frequent in Lk. Acts, and Jn.: Lk. 7'jQl. 5. 41 Il39 1242a j^li jy6, 6 ig* IQ*' ". 34 22*1 24" Jn. 4I 6^^ II* 20*- 1. ". 21^- " Acts 51* 9'- lOa- " 15. 17, 27, 35, 42 jjl6, 21b j,^ 1^23 2210^ 26^'^.
?.8.
4. 'iT^aoGq
1
Xptardq.
12
(a)
Without
21
the
article
preceding:
Rom.
i*.
and general
epistles;
ii
Rev. il
occurs
2.
Mt.
6
ii
16"
(txt. unc.)
Mk.
Jn.
I"
i7.
In Mt.
ii
27".
22^
'IiQcroOq
Xsy6[iewq xpiaxoq.
In Acts 35
5 b below. Without the article: Rom. 6' S"''. " 15H 2 Cor. i (txt. unc.) Gal. 41* Eph. i^ 2^0 Phil, il Col. i' 4" esp. freq. in the phrase ev XptcTw 'Ir,Gou; Rom. 3^4 6" 8^- * 151^ 16' i Cor. i'- < s" 415. n 16" Gal. 2* 326. 28 ^6 Eph_ Jib 28. v. 10, 13 26. 51 Phil, l^^- ^S 25 35. 14 47, 19, Col. i< I Thes. 2i< 518; found also in the pastoral epistles and Acts, but in no other books. In Rom. i^ 2^^ 51^ 155 1 Cor. ii 2 Cor. 4^ Gal. 2I6 y* Phil. i 2*1 the mss. vary between 'J-raoO Xp. and Xp. 'Irjaou.
5.
4" we have 'Ir^ooUq Xpiczhq b Na'C,i>ipaloq. (b) With the article, in Mt. i^' only. See
Xpiaxhq
'iT^couq.
(a)
(b)
With the
1 85. 28
ad
i^s
loc.)
Eph.
31 only.
In
Acts 5
Tov xpiaxov is
predicate;
Mt.
should probably
read,
Kupioq
Cor.
'Ii^aoGq.
(a)
Without the
article:
Rom. 14^
3"
Phil. 2",
probably also
in
predicate.
(b)
With the
II" Eph. I" I Thes. 2" 42 2 Thes. 1^2^ (txt. unc); 2 Tim. 422 (some texts); Phm.5; freq. also in Acts (81" 1120 1511 1631 etc.) but not found in other books with conclusive ms. evidence.
7.
Rom.
s*^-
424
^
Cor.
9I;
or in transposed order:
Cor.
(txt. unc.)
Cor. i"
Thes.
2^^
y^- "
Paul in
only.
-fj^Awv,
and Heb.
13",
8.
& xuptoc
-fj^uLfov
'IigaoG";
Xptaxdq and other phrases containing these three terms, (a) x6ptoq 'ItqcoG.; Xptcrroq without the article: Rom. i' i Cor. i' 8 2 Cor. 12 Gal. i Eph. i2 623 Phil. 12 320 i Thes. ii 2 Thes. i'. 2, 12b phm. '; outside the Pauline letters, in Jas. ii only.
xupco?
'Iir^croGq
(b)
2
Thes. 3
With the article: Rom 13'^ (txt. unc.) i Cor. 6'! 2 Cor. 13' Phil. 423 Phm. 25; outside of Paul in Acts iii' 2831 Rev. 2221, with vv. II.
394
(c)
GALATIANS
In
45.
transposed
order
without the
article:
XptuTb?
'iTQaoJq
xuptoq:
Cor.
(d)
(e)
With the
'O xuptoq
Cor.
18
'l-qaoijq
'
Xpiaioq:
Rom.
51-
"
i5'
' i
Cor.
!*
'
15"
21,
I' 89
Gal. 6".
I
Eph.
6''
^*
Col.
i i
Thes.
Thes.
i'
14,
3I8J also
I*'
<
Tim.
Acts
2^ 1
Pet.
Pet.
(f)
Jude
4, 17, 21.
'Itjcous;
Xpcaxbq
6 xuptoq ^a.wv:
Rom.
(i)
i<
5"
725 i
Cor.
i',
also
Jude
25.
Rom. 6"
OiOiJ,
8^9 i
(ii)
Cor. 15"
with
[xoO
instead
of
With the
article before
9.
Tlbq
article
2743,
Rom.
i^
(only instance in
Eph. 3'!. God: (a) Without the Paul); also in Mt. 14"
'Iriaouq:
5=.
s4Mk.
(b)
4-
8"
(voc.)
27" Mk.
5' (voc.)
Lk.
4'.
8^8 (yoc.)
some
With the
or
'cBtoq,
etc., referring to God: Rom. i'- 5' 8'- " " Gal. i6 Eph. 4" I Thes. i*" (no other examples in Paul); Mt. 2^5317 17s Mk. I" 3" 9^ Lk. 322 4" 935 Jn. !" " 3I8 5" 935 (txt. unc.) ii< Acts 9" Heb. 66 73 io2' 2 Pet. i^M Jn. 3* 4"'' ^^ $^- ' i" bis " ''^' " 2"^.
a'JTou,
220 44,6
(d)
With the
ajToQ
article
and other
I
titles
accompanying:
b \j\hq ojutou
'l-r^aoiji;
Xptaxbq
6 uVoq
6 Y.upioq tjxwv:
'Iri^oiiq
Cor.
I
i^;
Xpiaroq:
Jn. i'
Mt.
i6i (c/.
26"); b xpio'chq
b u\hq ToCiOeou:
i
Cf. 2 Jn.
'Itqjoui;
Xptaxbq
10.
aojT-rjp is
yet here
title
not precisely as a
of
Cf. Lk.
Jesus
b
rjiii]p
Jn. 4'\
As a
Tim.
i^";
XptaTb<;
3^-,
'I-r]jo'j;
Xpiaihq
acoT-fjp
-fjtJLWv
in Tit. xal
Gsbq
x.al
cwTTjp
T]X(7)v
dehq
i)[iMiV
atox-Jjp
'Ittjcjo'j?
XptJTOi; in 2 Pet.
cw-:-?]?
Ill ^18;
without
Qsbq.
T)ix(I)v
in 2 Pet.
11.
The
520.
Rom.
9=
Heb.
i*
Jn.
'8,
Jn.
II.
'lr,~oiJq
'IH20T2.
Hebrew name To what extent of the name itself
is
Joshua,
V'^^ini,
word lingered in the use N. T. times, there is no definite indication. In Paul there is no trace Probably it was usually as of it, and elsewhere in N. T. in Mt. i" only. little in mind as is the meaning of the word Theodore at the present day.
this etymological sense of the
in
TITLES
395
XPI2T02.
JEWISH USAGE.
of the Hebrew nirn, "anointThe Hebrew word is applied in the literal sense to the high priest i'. As a substantive sometimes in the expression 'Hhe in Lev. 4' anointed of Yahweh," it is applied to the King of Israel: i Sam. 2^' " From its 12'It is used of Cyrus in Isa. 45*. Ps. 18" Lam. 4^ Hab. 31'.
XptaTo.;
is
the
Greek representative
ed."
usage with reference to the King of Israel, perhaps under the influence g^^f-, it came to be emof a messianic interpretation of Ps. 2^, and Dan.
ployed as a
title,
common and
distinctive
title,
of
Messiah
is
But as the idea of a personal with what may be broadly called the
is
g.,
is
messianic hope (see Bous. Rel. d. Jud^, p. 255), so the term Xgioihq
not always present when the expected deliverer Test. XII Patr. Reub. 6'-i=; Lev. S^" iSi^- Jud.
the earliest instances of
4810 52*.
its
spoken
of.
See,
e.
241-s
Dan.
510. ".
Among
i
title
are
Enoch
Book of Enoch, ad loc, says these are the earliest cases. Nearly contemporaneous and more significant is Ps. Sol. ly'^b. 36; "And a righteous king and taught of God is he that reigneth over them. And there shall be no iniquity in his days in their midst, for all shall be holy, and their King is Messiah, Lord (Xpiczhq xupto^;)." The whole psalm is a most instructive reflection of the ideas of religion, and especially of the Messiah and the messianic deliverance which were held by the Pharisees See also i8' , and on the whole subject in the last pre-Christian century.
Charles,
Schr., 29; E. T. II,
ii,
B.
NEW TESTAMENT
for
it
USAGE.
The evidence
of
N. T. leaves no room
titular use of
mon by
more
first
Christian century, as
used as a descriptive
or personal
name
of Jesus.
As respects the degree of identification of the character designated by the term with the person Jesus, there are five uses of the term in N. T., in the first four of which it stands alone without other appellatives; in the
fifth it is
1.
titles of Jesus.
"the Messiah" without identification of any person as such: Mt. 2< 22 Mk. 1235 Lk. 22' 24=6 Jn. y". " " " Acts 2" ly'^. 2. It is used as the predicate of~ a proposition, the subject of which is
It designates
itself;
or in a question,
it is
asked
396
whether one
23* Jn.
is
GALATIANS
to be identified with the Christ.
is
Most frequently the subJesus (Mk. 8" 14" Mt. 16^^ 26" Lk. 9"
24^-
Lk. 3")3.
7" 10" II" 17^^ Acts 17^^ iSO, but occasionally others (Mt. For qualitative effect the article may be omitted: Acts 2'*.
"
It designates
him
specifi19
Mt.
i^'
ii^ 2310
Acts
8'
Rom.
j* 9'.
14I8 i^?.
j^is
Cor.
io^'
"
17
(txt.
unc.)
qu
.
i^ 6^
Eph.
i^"- ". 20
15" 2 Cor. i^ 2'2. i< 3* 4* 510. u 25. n ^t, s. i? ^12, 20 ^2. 6, u. 23. 24,
"
Phil. I".
etc.
4. It
his messiahship,
becomes a title or name of Jesus without discernible emphasis upon though this is perhaps usually in the background of the
thought:
2l ^l.
23
Rom.
210'
5' 6^-
s.
S'-
<>
"
18,
91 io<-
''
"
158.
i*.
20.
"
1.
16*
17.
Cor.
19,
23
i^^. i^
22,
12
18.
13,
20,
23a
19
2 Cor.
I"
17 ^3,
22 2*'
14
46
^17,
20
Ms
2,
III"'
i22,
'<.
10,
1-
17. 20, 21
^13. 16,
27, 29
^19 ^1.
Heb.
911.
between the two classes of cases, 3 and 4, can Broadly speaking, the instances in which the article is present in the Greek belong under 3, those in which it is absent under 4, But instances without the article may belong under 3, the article being
line of distinction
The
See,
e.
,g.,
Cor.
123 (cf.
RV.
It is
perhaps,
Cor.
2i
and
Cor.
51',
It is
name and
usually
No examThough the
ples of this usage of XptcjToc; alone, without the article (on 'Ir;aoOq Xpia-z6q,
see below), occur in the gospels, except perhaps in
Mk.
9".
was current before the gospels were written, the gospel writers do not, with the one possible exception, impute it to the evangelic period or themselves employ it.
it
5.
It occurs in
titles of Jesus,
compound
appellatives.
but one,
N. T. books, we find the use of the term with reference to Jesus fully developed, and taken for granted. This is true even of the earhest letters. Paul's common titles for Jesus are "the Christ," "Christ," "the Lord Jesus Christ," and "our Lord Jesus Christ." Indeed, he finds no occasion to affirm that Jesus is the Christ, nor does he, outside of two or three passages of somewhat doubtful interpretation (see, e. g., 2 Cor. 10"; iio- 12), ever use the term in its primary sense of "the cf. Eph. (unidentified) Christ." The major portion of the post-Pauline epistles exhibit substantially the same usage, but with a somewhat marked tendency to prefer the longer, compound titles. These facts show that comparatively early
TITLES
397
was
From the gospels and Acts we are able to see in part how this usage arose and was developed. Though undoubtedly written after the letters of Paul, and in many passages reflecting the usage of the period in which they arose (so, e. g., clearly in Mt. i^ and Mk. i^; see also Mt. 11* 23I"), they show clear traces of an earlier usage and thought. The gospel of Mk. represents Jesus as gathering his earliest disciples without asserting that he was the Christ or eliciting from them any acknowledgment of him as such. The first assertion of the messiahship was at Caesarea Philippi, but the confession there made he charges them not to publish (S^^. ), and it is not again referred to except incidentally in conversation between Jesus and his disciples (9"), and by implication in the words of Bartimaeus, till the trial of Jesus, when in response to the challenge of the high priest he openly declares that he is the Christ (Mk. 14"- "). The discussion of the lordship of the Messiah in i2''ff- pertains to the Messiah as such, not to Jesus. This primitive tradition is somewhat modified in the other synoptic gospels, yet
not so as materially to obscure
it.
The
fourth gospel represents the question whether Jesus was the Christ
as playing a
much
larger
and
In
this, as in
other respects,
by the distance between the events the book, and by the special purpose of the
is
book
of
an entire absence
'l-qaouq
the Pauline
xP'-3i:6q,
and
Xpiaxoq
Jesus
name
commonly
used.
Even
but as a predititles
and
'l-Qcouq Xptaxdc;
all.
but once
The
longer
compound
do
not occur at
on the other hand, furnishes examples of all the Pauline compound names being most frequent. The writer even represents Peter, at the beginning of the apostolic age, as commonly using the expression "Jesus Christ" and once "the Lord Jesus Christ." If this is historically correct, there must have been a very rapid development of usage immediately following the death and resurrection of It is probable, however, that the author is here, to some extent, Jesus. carrying back to the beginning of the apostolic age the usage of a later time. Acts 2' ascribes to Peter the view that by the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus God made him both Lord and Christ. If this means that the messiahship dates from the resurrection, this is a different conception from that which is implied in the third gospel, viz.: that it belonged to his public ministry (s^^^- 9"), if not even dating from his birth (2ii' '). In the mind of the writer it may perhaps mean that what he was preof Acts,
The book
39^
viously in purpose and
lO, or that he
GALATIANS
by
right he
now became
in fact
and power
{cf.
Rom.
as well as Christ.
fthe whole evidence points, therefore, to the conclusion that beginning name of the expected but as yet unidentified coming king (a usage in existence among the Jews before the appearance of Jesus) it was in his lifetime first questioned whether Jesus
with the use of "the Christ" as the
was the
by
was
risen
new
confidence,
Paul's day, but probably in larger part under his influence, there arose a
titles for Jesus, embodying this faith. These usages once developed were carried back to a very limited extent into the gospel record and
variety of
to a greater extent into the narrative of the early apostolic age, yet not so
and more primitive usage. 1 it meant in the first century to apply to Jesus or to any one else the term " Christ," not in its literal sense, "anointed," or as a mere proper name, but as a significant title. What
But
it still
mean when they affirmed that Jesus was the how did this assertion differ from what they meant when they spoke of him as "Lord," or "Son of God"? There is singularly little direct evidence to answer this question. The very familiarity of the term apparently made even indirect definition unnecessary. Yet such evidence as there is is sufficient to make it clear that
did the early Christians
Christ?
In particular
as a descriptive
title
the word
added implication
arise, of course,
of divine
appointment.
employ-
ment
chief
King
of Israel, concerning
Israel.
23:
whom
men's
thought was that he. sent by God, would deliver of divine appointment is specially suggested in Acts
made both Lord and Christ." jBut the word "Christ" complementary to the term "Lord" probably describes Jesus as Saviour. In the absence
in Paul's writings there is no more sigwhich the term stands in his mind than the class cf words with which he employs the expression 6 x?^'^'^^^, which, as pointed out above, 'is not a proper name but a significant title.' It is
of
any
word
all
in preference to XptJToG
and even
i' i
Thus he
9 2
times
(i
Thes. 3 Gal.
Cor,
Cor. 2"
Rom.
15''
Phil. I")
and only
.
in 2 Thes. i*
euayyiXtov
Phil. 3I8,
in
Cor.
i^^
Gal.
6i<;
rot
61' (?)
title of
Jesus (Gal
but see
cA
OXt'ij^eti;
xoG
xP^^'^oiJ
in Col. i";
and
xaGiQiXaTa
-coii
After
a\\i<x
or
aGi\La,
399
^ptaxoO is used in i Cor. lo^' bis Eph. 2" Rom. 7*; but also tou xupfou After d-r&iz-q we find xou xpiaiou in Rom, 8'^ 2 Cor. 5" in I Cor. 11". Eph. 3I', and no instance of XpwToO or other genitive referring to Jesus this (yet cf. Gal. 22"). 'Not all the instances of tou xpi<J^ou are clearly of type; but the Pauline usage, as a whole, strongly suggests that by 6 xpiaxbq Paul meant "the Christ" in the sense of "the DeHverer," "the Saviour.")
Note,
is
Phil. 3" also, the rarity of aioxrig as a title of Jesus in his vocabulary. the only instance in the certainly genuine letters, though it is frequent in
of
From what the Christ was expected to deliver men on this the thought men undoubtedly varied greatly. When in Lk. 3'^ it is said, " All men were
and mused
in their hearts
in expectation
the meaning
is
doubtless that
whom
In the
probably
similar.
Such passages as i Thes. i" Gal. 3" Rom. $' show that in its negative aspect the salvation which the Christ brought to men was a deliverance from the condemnation of sin and the divine wrath against sinners. Yet
it
clearly
had
5^-
")
and
See,
of character.
Rom.
"it is the manifest intention of the fourth gospel to attach its doctrine of
Jesus as the Christ to the Jewish idea of the Messiah (note its interpretation of the word "Christ" as the equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah," i"),
and
Yet it is to claim for Jesus the fulfilment of that idea to the full. scarcely less evident that the idea of the Christ which the fourth evangelist desired his readers to accept and hold had little in common with the Jewish
idea of a poUtical deliverer of the nation, except the bare idea of deliverance. See 20", "that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that believing ye may have life in his name." See also 4 where "the Saviour of the world" represents "the Christ" of v.". 'The author has
attached his conception to
its historical
it
of its political,
and given it a purely religious meaning, that "the Christ" is in thought chiefly a deliverer from death and from that which is the cause "I am come that they may have life" represents the dominant of death. point of view of the book, and "life" is a fundamentally ethical conception.
his
IV.
A.
KTPI02.
CLASSICAL USAGE.
In classical Greek writers the substantive xuptoq designates a person who has control over another person or thing, or persons or things, either
400
by
GALATIANS
by right of ownership, as or of position, as of a husband to his household, or of office, as in the case of a guardian or trustee.
SEPTUAGINT USAGE.
same word x6ptoq occurs hundreds of times, being employed as a translation of some twenty different Hebrew words and phrases. The two that are most important for our purpose are rnx, lord, and nin^, Yahweh, the great majority of the occurrences of x6pto<;
this
In the
Lxx
being
to a man as the owner of property or as the master of a slave; to the husband as lord of the wife; to a prince as lord of the land; and even to God himself (Josh. 3"). Applied to God, however, it usually takes the form ^jin. The general tendency of the
translations of one or the other of these, ter." "lord," and is applied in various senses:
Lxx
is
to
omit the
when
it
translates nin\
C.
NEW TESTAMENT
(iii)
USAGE.
(i)
owner-
right of service,
right of obedience.
Its correlative
term
is
SouXoq, "slave," or Stcixovoq, or oUi-cnq, "servant," most commonly the first. See Mt. 10". 25 1327 24-5o 2^'^ Lk. i2-47 1421-23 jn. 13I8 1^20. xhe slave belongs to his master, owes him service and obedience. These three ideas are not, indeed, always equally prominent in the usage either
of
xuptoq or SouXog,
and
in individual instances
e. g.,
some one
of
them may
alto-
gether
fall
away.
See,
Cor.
4',
where
oMT-qq or Staxovoq. These conceptions are, however, the usual elements of the relation referred to by these words, xuptoc; then means:
for
1.
by hyperbole
The master
"
1-27 1825,
27.
31
20' 21^0
is
in itself the
of course,
Mt. 14^2, 45, 48, 48, 60 25I8. 19. 20, 21, 22, 23 24, 28 One who has rightful control of an institudon, to whom it belongs, being, as it were, his property: Mt. 128 Mk. 2^^, x6ptoq xoG aa^^dxou. 3. Like the English "Mister" (Master) and the modern Greek xupto?, it is
used as a term of polite address, expressing greater or
less reverence,
and
implying greater or less authority according to circumstances; sometimes equivalent to "Rabbi" or "Master":
(a)
(b)
(c)
Roman governor by his subjects: Mt. 27". addressed to Jesus by his disciples, and by the people: Mt. 17" 18"
addressed to a
Mk.
728.
TITLES
4.
40
human and
divine:
5.
As a name
for or title of
God
it
varies in
God
to a proper
name not
10
sharply
^33
is 33 47, distinguished from the word Qeoq: Mt. i^". 22, 24 2". n. 29. 30, 36 1320 Llc. 2i9, 42 2237' "a 2339 2710 282 Mk. I3 5" (?) Il3 I2"16,
17,
25,
1125
"
"
28, *2
38,
45,
46, 58,
66,
68, 76
29a, b,
i^"*
IB, 22,
23a, b, 24, 39
^4
3='^
aS,
12,
18,
19
-17 JQ^^'
^''
1^^^
ig8 20".
J9
Tn.
i^''
1213. 38a, b
!'
Acts
18
22'
2''
"
7"- "
*^ 82'-
23
I^l?.
26
Rom.
48'
Q"'
"
Jq",
18
Il3,
12"
j^ll j^ll J
Cor.
52
i3i
22
(?)
Thcs. 4
Of these passages the following are most significant as Tim. 2"a' indicating the meaning v/hich the term bore in the N. T. period as applied it is worthy of note that to God: Mt. 4'- i" 1125 223' Mk. 1229. 30 Lk. 1021. 27. in the Pauline epistles the word is used of God chiefly in quotations from
(?) 2
the 0. T., the words Gsoq and xaTYjp being the apostle's favourite
titles for
i
God, and
85.
6.
/.uptoq
title of Jesus.
See especially
Cor.
The N. T.
Kupioq
applied to
God
is
is
the word
"God"
anarthrous).
But both
N. T. the
Ex. i2
article is
sometimes prefixed.
Lev.
i2 21 43 515, etc.
Mt.
533
Lk.
^s 2^^- 23b
Acts
1^17
Rom.
IS".
is
a number
is
of passages in
which
it is difficult
to
God
3), it
or Christ.
6.
is
As applied
under
sometimes used in a theocratic sense, ascribing to him supreme authority over men and the world of heavenly existences, subject only to that of God
the Father:
Rom.
10'
Cor.
722 123
On
the question what was the precise content of the term so used, and
in particular
whether
it
was
identical in
applied to
(a)
nini,
God
which, as
Lxx and
in
N. T. by
xupioq, is
"my Yahweh,"
of
to Jesus is often
"our Yahweh," never occur in 0. T. accompanied by ^'^iCyv. This suggests that xuptoq as used Jesus corresponds rather to "'0^N than to nin\ See (c) below. (b) The expression D-'mSx nin-" is often applied in 0. T. to God, as the
7.(jpioq b
Greek equivalent
(c)
Osoq
is
in the
Lxx and N.
Mk.
by
is
In N. T. Ps.
no
r^^n>
is
1235
Lk.
20*2
Acts 2") as
to apply the
(d)
term
nini to
is
God,
""Jix
to Jesus.
In the
Lxx
usually translated
26
402
GALATIANS
In N. T. this usage is generally followed, but, as indicated in 5 above, not invariably. For Jesus the regular term is 6 xupcog, subject to the
usual rules for the omission of the article.*
(e)
The
title
xupioq
was
the
Roman
emperors.
In Acts
in the apostolic age beginning to be appHed to 2526 Festus speaks of Nero as b x6ptoq.
have marked
(f)
political authority. But, whatever originated too late (Augustus and Tiberius refused it) to influence on the early stages of the development of the
term
as a title of Jesus.
See Dal.
WJ.
pp. 324 /.
The
title xuptoq
Greek or
term
in
Hebrew.
Even Paul took it over from the Aramaic, as appears expression Maran atha. But Mar or Maran is a general
for lord, master, ruler; not a specifically religious term at all. See Case, "Kuptoq as a Title for Christ," in JBL. 1907, pp. 151-161, especially p. 156. C/. MacNeill, The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
PP- 70/.
These
of relationship (to
N. T., i^ not, even term of nature or of identification with Yahweh, but men and the world).
What
(i)
by the term
is
is,
is
indicated
by
lo'
The
that Jesus
is
xupcoq:
Rom.
i
Cor.
4=.
xupco;
and
oixsttq? or
14^; cf.
Cor.
721-=* 2
Cor. 45
Rom.
3^".
i^.
Rom.
(d)
which
ascribed to
such an extent used also of Jesus that there are several passages in which it is impossible to determine with certainty whether the reference
is to^
is
God
to
God
ing an application to
God
Rom.
145-9, where in v. the word xupioq is without the article, suggesting the reference to God, but in v.^ has the article, suggesting reference to Christ,
which is confirmed by v.'; 2 Cor. 31-ib, where xupto? is without the article and refers to God in the O. T. quotation of v.i, in v.i^a has the article,
in
As a
title
or
name simply
iqj,.
it
has the
is
article, as
a rule.
See,
e. g..
Lk. lo'
i7.
Rom.
i* 5-.
When
=5
the article
(b)
f,;,
omitted the noun is (a) qualitative: Acts 2" Rom. io vocative: Acts i; (c) used in a fixed adverbial phrase, especially
Ccr. 7" " oL Gal. 5i, etc., though particularly in reference to this phrase is to determine with certainty whether the term refers to Christ or to God; or (d) jained by Kal to a phrase, especially ^eb? irarr^p, which either itself has the article or is definite withoii!: it. See detached note on UaTijp as applied to God, p. 386.
it difficult
403
article,
without it;*
Thes.
Thes.
a'^,
where
y.upiog is
and
Phil.
cf. I
Osoc;;
with Rom.
i
lo'^-is
also with
52 cf. 2
Thes.
2^:
and with
2' cf.
Rom.
(iv)
The
is
conceived
Yet on the other hand, Jesus possessed a and was himself the agent of creais
The
in part a restora-
tion of a
is
power temporarily
And
again,
when
it
has accomplished
and unrivalled sovereignty of God the Fa:ther, yet during the period of its exercise, which is to extend beyond th coming of the Lord in the clouds, it is without limit in its authority over men, and extends even to "things
in
I
See
Cor,
8^.
Phil.
2^. i cj.
Col.
115-18,
is
(Rom.
10'
was doubtless of variable content, according to the period in which it was used and the person uttering it, and while it does not in any case mean, "Jesus is God," being an assertion of function and
authority rather than of nature, yet at
lordship which
is
its
highest
it
ascribes to Jesus a
To
to
bow
the will to
him
as God.
This highest theocratic use of the term as applied to Jesus is most fully developed in the Pauline letters. The impression thus given that Christian
thought
firmed
is
chiefly indebted to
him
by an examination
of the gospels
development of the idea is conand Acts, the total evidence indicatJesus gradually acquired greater depth and
for the
significance, rising from a title of ordinary respect to a theocratic sense, but reaching the latter well within the lifetime of Paul. In the gospel of Mk., the evangelist, though showing that he himself
fully believed in the messianic or theocratic lordship of Jesus,
and repre-
somewhat
yet does not represent Jesus' disciples as ever calling him Lord, or any any sense other than Sir or Master. The gos-
pels of
lifetime, yet
Mt. and Lk. modify this representation of the situation in Jesus' on the whole in such a way as to make it clear that they are
by the usage
*WH. suggest that Kvpiov in v.' is a primitive error for Kvpiov, "dominant," a reading which would relieve the difEculty of interpretation and would obviously tempt to change to the more familiar /cuptov, but which one hesitates to adopt because of the rarity of the word Kvptos as an adjective, it being found nowhere else in N- T.
404
and 25"'
as Lord.
", in
GALATIANS
which Jesus,
in his office of judge, at the last day, is addressed
b xupioq is
passages as a
sometimes of the historic person, much more frequently of the risen and heavenly Jesus. Most significant is Acts 2", which ascribes to Peter at the beginning of the apostolic age the words,
of Jesus,
name
"Him
hath
and exaltation. The association with the word "Christ" indicates that the word "Lord" is used in an exalted sense, probably exceeding the meaning of the word as addressed to Jesus in any passage in the third gospel. This, in a measure, confirms the evidence, derived from a comparison of the synoptic gospels, that the recognition of Jesus as Lord in the lofty sense of this passage arose first in the apostolic age and indicates that it was at first associated with him only as risen and exalted.
this is achieved
The usage
is
in essential features
identical
with
that of Lk. and Acts, differing only in the greater frequency of the use of
the word as a term of address to Jesus and in a clearer ascription of the term
in a theocratic sense to the risen Jesus.
The
origin in Jesus'
own
lifetime
and
in his
own
teaching, but that the application of the term to Jesus in its higher
The theocratic sense, so clearly and fully develsenses is of later origin. oped in Paul, is ascribed to the earlier apostolic age in Jn. 20" Acts 2^*, and to Jesus in Mt. 7" 25"' *\ But the evidence as a whole points to the
conclusion that (with the possible exception of Acts
as well as Lk. i"
2') all
these passages,
and
2",
and that the higher, theocratic sense had its origin in the apostolic age, perhaps with Peter, more probably with Paul. Cf. Bohlig, "Zum Begriff Kyrios bei Paulus," in ZntW. 1913, pp. 23-37.
V.
A.
|3,
with which
>J3,
maybe included
God,"
D^riSx ^jd,
is
d^hSnt
and
"my
them
son," v^
refers to
God),
It
is
human and
when
also
2.
the sons
21
is
God in their mode of being: Job i: "Now there was a day See of God came to present themselves before the Lord."
6<.
Job
It
Of similar force
is
Dan. 3"
().
it
as
chosen of
"Thou
Thus
saith
is
my
son,
my
first-born,
and
TITLES
405
See also Deut. thee, Let my son go." O") Hos. iii: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." It is used also in the plural of the children of Israel: Hos. ii":
Jer. 319.
i^
them,
"Where it was said unto them. Ye are not my Ye are the sons of the living God."
3. It is
people,
it
shall
be said unto
him
will
1713-
be his father,
^'
be
my
son."
Chr.
221".
but qualitative.
USAGE IN JEWISH-GREEK.
The usage
DiriSx "ja in
is
of
ulb<;
Gsou in the
It
Lxx
is
the Heb. O. T.
article,
out the
The term
the Pseudepigrapha of the pre-Christian period, designating one who is the object of divine love and care. It occurs most frequently in Wisd. Sol.
See
218;
man
is
God's son
{uVoq Qzoij)
The how
also
plural
is
used in
5*:
"How
was he numbered
So also in 9^
i2i9-
mong
"
his lot
is
among
Sir. 41,
saints?"
1610. ^^
i8^
In 18" the
singular
is
singular
The
but with special reference to an individual: "So shalt thou be as a son of the Most High, and he shall love thee more than thy mother doth." See also Jth. 9*. " (plur.); 3 Mac. 6=8 (plur.); Ps. Sol. 173": "For he shall know them that they are all sons of their God," ulol 0eoO
found in
e(ctv
auTwv
TiavTsq.
Cf.
detached note on
IlaTTjp as applied to
first
God, p. 385.
The messianic
phrase
also;
cf.
appears in the
y""^- 29
(though the
it
of doubtful genuineness in
72*,
in 29
Gunkel in Ka.^P., and Bous. Rel. d. Jiid.\ p. 261 /.); i3'='. " " 14". This book being definitely dated by internal evidence for the year 81 a. d.,
these passages are of capital importance.
It
is
remarks) the Jewish passages in which the term " Son of God " is used of the Messiah are those in which he is represented as in conflict with the people
and kings
of the earth.
between the Jewish and N. T. use of the term; since the latter has entirely
different associations
*
and suggestions.
105' are in
all
my Son" in i Enoch
is
probability an interpolation,
loc;
if,
indeed
not.
Cf. Charles, in
Ch.AP. ad
DaX.WJ.
p.
269. Beer, in
Ka.
4o6
GALATIANS
title
as applied to Jesus,
(a) in
the
more
term
in the O. T.,
of
N. T. usage
itself,
on the one
closely associated
with
its
One
link of connection
ever, be mentioned.
common
use
among
the
Jews as a title of the expected king and deliverer before the Christian era, and was early taken over by the Christians as a title of him whom they
accounted to be this expected deliverer, viz., Jesus. Whether the usage was so associated with Ps. 2 that it involved a tacit reference to that psalm
or not,
would certainly suggest it to many. And since in that psalm is called the "Anointed" is also called "m.y son," that is, God's son, there was furnished in this way a possible basis for the application of the term "Son of God" to the Messiah by either Jews or ChrisIt is doubtful, however, whether the Christian usage of the term tians. was actually arrived at in this way. For, though the term "Son of God"
it
the one
who
first.
Christian
no evidence that this usage was common either in the days of Jesus or in the lifetime of Paul that is sufficient to justify our assuming
it
The characterisation of a king as a son of God or of a particular god, was a wide-spread usage of the ancient world, but was not of uniform meaning.
calls Dal.TFJ. pp. 272 /., says: "When Asshurbanipal in his Annals himself 'an offspring of Asshur and Bilit,' this means no more than a being
. . .
The
were reckoned to be
real
'
The
"One may
became a deterrent to its common use by Ihe synagogue. But even for the earher must be recognised as certain that Ps. 2 was not of decisive importance in the JewA ish conception of the Messiah and that "Son of God" was not a common Messianic title. hindrance to the use of xnVs 1:3 or ^inSsn j3 would have presented itself in the custom of
of Ps. 2
period
it
name of God; and this aftenvards shows itself when Mark 1461 gives the words of the Jewish high priest as 6 vib? tov tvXoyrjrov, a form ill adapted to become a current Messianic title. When God calls the Messiah his Son, this is merely meant as a
not uttering the
sign of thj c.-cceptional love with which he above others
Cf.
is
regarded," p. 272.
"Dass der Titel 'Sohn' im Judentum an und fur sich noch keinerlei metaphysische Bedeutung hat, bedarf keines weiteren Bowcises." njither a direct Jesus, vol. II, p. 131. says that "thii title was Wendt, Teaching of
also
Bous. Rel.
d. Jud.*, p.
262.
40
Roman em-
Sextus Pompeius called perors also boasted frequently of divine progenitors. himself the son of Neptune; Domitian the son of Minerva; Caligula and
Hadrian deemed themselves to be earthly manifestations of Zeus." The Roman worship of rulers began with Julius Caesar. Enthusiasm over his achievements led to the erection of statues which listed him among the deities. This was at first pure flattery taken seriously by no one. But
with his assassination extravagant adulation crystallised into religious conIn the minds of the common people he became a god. In deferviction.
ence to this belief the senate conferred upon him the title Divus (.deified) and ordered a temple erected for his worship. His successor, Augustus,
disclaimed divine honours during his lifetime, but was deified immediately From that time on till the fall of the empire in the fifth after his death.
lost
century nearly every emperor was deified. Later, however, the honour much of its religious character and became largely a formality. Other members of the imperial family also were deified. The deification of a
deceased emperor was accomplished by a formal vote of the senate, and was celebrated by appropriate ceremonies. See H. F. Burton, "The Worship of the
Roman
"son of God," as applied to the Roman emperor of the first Christian century, was not, however, a characterisation of the emperor himself as divine, or of divine origin, but referred to the
The
title
had been
deified at death.
quoted by De.55.
ulou S(ia(jToij
p. 131, h
in
Journal
of Hellenic
father as
Onb; icaTTjp
[xou.
Cf.
also
De.55. pp. 166 ff. It is improbable, therefore, that this usage had any important influence on the Christian usage by which the term uXhc, OeoG or h ulbq Tou 6sou was applied to Jesus, still less, of course, on the use of the plural, ulol GsoO, as applied to believers in Christ. There is, indeed, a possible, not to say probable, parallelism in the apostle's mind between
designation of the Messianic dignity, nor did
of the
it
Messiah on which the Jews in the time of Jesus laid the chief stress. ... In relation to this most essential characteristic of the Messiah [viz., that he was king of Israel] the traditional attribute, 'the Son of God,' denotes only an incidental notion of very indefinite content." Yet he holds that the term would be recognised as designating the Messiah. Thus, p. 130, "In the fact that the 0. T. passages 2 Sam. 7'* Ps. 2^ 89"f-, in which the theocratic king of Israel was designated the Son of God, were interpreted of the future Messianic king, lay the reason for this title of
that a claim to
siahship
as
as this
Son of God being considered as specially belongmay be doubted. There is no clear evidence necessarily be understood as an affirmation of mes-
the
among the Jews of the first half of the first Christian century. One recognised Messiah would undoubtedly be conceived to be a son of God. But the converse
follow.
would not
4o8
the
GALATIANS
language
in Rom. i^ too hpioUvxoq uloG GsoO ... 1^ imaxdaeaq and an announcement such as might have been made in Rome that the emperor lately deceased had by decree of the senate been deified, raised to the rank of Qzoq. But the parallelism fails precisely in the fact
vsxpwv,
it must be inferred he can not possibly mean that by his resurrection from the dead his father has been made a god) that his term ulb; ecoCi had its origin in and derived its meaning from a usage quite other than that of the application of this term to Augustus, or in similar sense to other emperors. Cf. H. F.
Burton, op.
cil.,
p. 91. D.
NEW TESTAMENT
USAGE,
Pauline 7/5a^e. Investigation of the use ot the term by N. T. writers and teachers necessarily begins with that of Paul's epistles, since it is only in the light of their evidence that it is possible to judge how much of the
I.
sages seem to refer Judaism to become a follower of Jesus the Christ; both refer to a process or act of divine revelation by which Paul gained a new conception of Jesus;
it is
of pre-Pauline origin.
The
clue to the
2
i^^ is
probably to be found in
Cor.
4*-6.
Cor.
4<-6, in
which Jesus
is
described as
said that
God
God in the face of Jesus Christ, as indicating the principal emphasis of the expression, "his Son," in Gal. ii, and so to
In Rom. S'ff- the post-resurrection Christ is identified with the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God, and in the same context is called God's own Son. It is hazardous to press the fact of this connection, both because there
is
expression "his
a considerable interval between the two expressions, and because the own Son" is used in speaking of the sending of Christ into
the world, while the other expressions are used of the post-incarnate Christ.
It
is
probably
8^2,
Rom.
"
He
Rom.
51",
Rom.
58,
evidently em-
same aspect
of the sonship.
In Gal. 4< which apparently conceives of Christ as the Son of God before the incarnation, a different phase of sonship is made prominent. The purpose of his sending the Son
of adoption.
And
is said to be that we might receive the spirit added that "because ye are sons, God sent forth Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Two things
it is
first,
Son
and.
TITLES
409
second, that the aspect of the sonship which is emphasised is that of the filial spirit the recognition of the divine fatherhood, in other words, inti-
macy
moral fellowship, which, belonging to Christ, becomes ours through This connects the passage again with Rom. 8'-, where the Spirit of Christ is identified with Christ and the But it also recalls Rom. 8"- ", which make it clear that Spirit of God.
of
God"
to designate one
who
is
in
by
him
and that he applied the term in this sense both to Christ as the Son of God and to men as sons of God. These two uses, therefore, were related, but In Gal. 4* God sends the Spirit of his Son into the hearts of in two ways. men who are, and because they are, sons; in Rom. 8^^ it is implied that men become sons by the possession of the Spirit of God, which elsewhere Paul For the evidence that the expression, identifies with the Spirit of his Son.
"born
of
of a
woman,"
in Gal. 4^
God
In
I
com. ad
loc.
Cor. is^*
it is
made
equivalent
is
used of
to Christ
(v."), and that the whole context emphasises the idea of the exercise of power on behalf of God; yet it is, perhaps, also not without significance that it is only when he comes to speak of the surrender of power that the term "Son " is used. The term i3 therefore clearly employed in its theocratic sense denoting one who, though subordinate to God, exercises for God
power over
In Col.
expression
all
things.
113-17,
makes
it
is
used in
v.^^
associated in
the idea of
this,
however,
closely
power.
the
first,
It is
perhaps too
much
two
noteworthy
as
if
suggested
by
Rom.
!'-
may
Son
being, born
of
be paraphrased as follows: " As a corporeally conditioned David (Messiah in the Jewish sense of the term or as
;
as a holy and spiritually existent being, constituted Son of God with power (nearly equivalent to heavenly Messiah and Lord) by the resurrection from the dead." Thus the sonship with power, as contrasted with the sonship of his earthly life (cf. Phil. 2^), is based on moral
likeness to
God
(note the
word
holiness)
in the pos-
session
and exercise
cf.
men and Note the immediately following words, Cor. ii^ 12^^ Phil. 29-". Thus the two
lordship over
members
aspect.
on
its
earthly and
heavenly
and
its
post-resurrection
41
GALATIANS
summarise the uses
of the
We may then
(a)
In this sense Paul uses the term both of Christ and of men, though clearly assigning it to Jesus in unique measure, and in some cases basing the sonship of men on their possession of the
ethico-religious sense.
Spirit of the Son,
(i)
The
The
3='5
one who
Col. i"-.
is
is
Gal.
4<.
Rom. 5"
"
(ii)
The moral
i^s i
sense, denoting
one who
morally
like
God: Gal.
(iii)
Cor. i*
Rom.
8^'^--
".
two ideas Paul associates the idea of freedom, such as belongs to a son as distinguished from a slave: Gal. 4' Rom. S'^-'^ (h) The ofiQcial and theocratic sense, denoting one who exercises divine power for God; applied to Christ only: i Thes. i'" i Cor. 15=8 2 Cor. i''
these
With
some blending
The
official
expressions "Christ"
extent blend in
cratic
and "Son of God" approximate and meaning. Through the union of the idea
Son with that of the pre-existence of the Christ and with that of and post-mundane power, there issues for Paul the thought of (i) the Son as the one Lord through whom the worlds came into being (i Cor. 8); (ii) the Son who, having laid aside his divine power on earth, lived under the law and died on the cross for men (Rom. 8^=); (iii) the Son, who, exalted to the right hand of God (Rom. 8^*; cf. Phil. 21") is again Lord of all till he surrender all things to the Father (i Cor. 15=^-"). Yet
his resurrection
it is
important to observe that, in Paul at least, each term retained its own fundamental meaning, Xptaxo? as an official term and the bearer of the
and
a certain moral
and
2.
''
religious relation to
God. and
Usage of
Ads.The
son of
God
Those
in
\j\o\
OsoG, designates
who are like God in moral character: Mt. 5'' "^ Lk. 6^^; cf. Rom. 8'^ (b) One passage in which it designates those who are like God in that their mode of existence is supramundane: Lk. 2o'; cf. Job i.
those
(c)
and
I'l
Thus
ul6^
in the baptism,
b
Mk.
but
Lk.
3=2
"Thou
is
art
my
beloved
Son"
(6
^ou
ayax-rjToq),
in
my
Mk.
9'
Mt.
17=:
TITLES
"This
is
is
41
my
Lk.
beloved Son"
4'- :
my
4'>
u\6q
IxXeXiQYtJLlvoq);
the temptation,
toO OcoO).
Mt.
God"
{zl
ulhq
The
context, esp. in the narrative of the baptism, but scarcely less clearly in the other accounts, emphasises the affectional sense of the term, the conception
of the
article,
Son as object
of the love
and confidence
of
God.
The
use of the
lacking in the narrative of the temptation, but present in all the other passages cited, designates Jesus as the one who was in an exceptional or
unique degree the object of the divine approving love. This uniqueness doubtless suggests unique responsibility, and so conveys an intimation of the official or theocratic sense. But neither this fact nor the probability that
in the apostolic age,
when the theocratic sense was the common possesit was understood chiefly in that sense, can con-
The passages
b
God,
fundamentally ethical sense of the term in these passages. in which the demoniacs address Jesus as the Son of 8" u\hq Toij 08OU, ule toO OcoO, tou 'T^ia-coo: Mk. 3" Lk. 4" Mt.
Lk.
8^8. is
Mk.
5^
the expression
But
several considerations
com-
bine to raise a doubt whether the original tradition which underlay the gospel record represented the demoniacs as calling Jesus the Son of God
in this sense
if,
indeed, in
any
sense.
it
doubtful, to say the least, whether "the Son of God" was in the Jesus in current use in an official sense. The gospel record makes
of
im-
probable that Jesus was in the beginning of his ministry recognised as the Christ; and the comparison of the statements of the several gospels shows such a tendency on the part of the evangelists to add such statements to the
testimony of their sources as makes it probable that they are all, in fact, the product of the process of gospel-making. The cries of the demoniacs which tradition recorded, the evangelists, influenced by the thought of their own
day, interpreted as affirmations of his divine
akin to messiahship.
(e)
The
and
crucifixion of Jesus.
Here,
also,
the
term which the evangelists report to have been used in the question of the high priest to Jesus (Mk. 14" Mt. 26' Lk. 2 2'' ^o) was doubtless understood by the gospel writers in a theocratic sense and nearly though not quite equivalent to "the Christ," which in Mt. and Mk. it follows immediately,
and
in Lk.
a separate question.
still
more
clearly in
But it Mt.
is
words are
an epexegetic addition of the evangelists. In Mt. 2j*0' the term emphaIt is, howsises the ethical, affectional sense, yet is probably official also. The words are not found ever, clearly an editorial expansion of the source. in either Mk. or Lk., and though the parallelism of Mt. 27" with Lk. 23" suggests that Mk. originally had a similar expression, it does not imply
412
GALATIANS
"Son
of
God."
force.
Mt. 27", the expression, looked upon as an utterance of a would naturally be taken in its non-Jewish sense, "a son of a god," implying, perhaps, kingly authority, since such a title was usually employed of kings, but directly expressive of divine origin. In the
parallel
and the
Roman
officer,
it
may have
official
is
In Mt. i6, "the Son of the living God" (6 itVoq toG Gsou tou ^wvtoj) an unmistakable epexegetic addition to the Mk. source, which has
h xpt<JT^i;.
only
is
no
parallel in either
an
editorial
The phrase is evidently theocratic. To Mt. 14" there Mk. or Lk.: the verse is doubtless, like Mt. 2'j*'>- , addition. The article is lacking, the omission giving to the
In
ethical or official.
Mk.
There is nothing to indicate clearly whether i^ ubO OjoG standing in the title of the
gospel or of
its opening section is manifestly editorial, whether proceeding from the original evangelist or an early scribe. In either case it is un(cf.
The absence of the article is whole expression, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God." (g) In Mk. i3'2 and in its parallel in Mt. 24', and in Mt. 11" and its parallel Lk. 10", Jesus uses the expression "the Son," 6 uloc;, in antithesis
doubtedly theocratic
1*
Rom.
Jn. 20")-
due to the
The
latter
term clearly refers to God, and the In itself the term bears its ethical
one who
is
in closest fellowship
God.
is
Yet
in
and theocratic though clearly in the spiritual realm. The passage testifies to the early date at which this conception of Jesus' divine sonship was accepted by the church, but by its limitation of fellowship with God to those whom the Son admits to this privilege, in contradistinction to the synoptic teachsense,
ing in
it
58,
lo^i,
whether
it is
own
thought.
(h)
its
The phrase
in i"
is
u\hq 'T(]^tjTou, in
i"
and in 3'8 [ulhq] tou 6cou. In the last-named passage the use and meaning of the term are quite exceptional. At the end of the genealogical line which traces the ancestry of Jesus backward, Seth is said to be son of Adam, and Adam son of God. The basis and content of the
0;ou,
sonship
is
member
of the line
owed
his
Adam owed
TITLES
AND PREDICATES OF
jEStJS
413
any man but directly to God.* It is improbable that the author meant to push the parallel so far as to ascribe to God a physical or biological paternity, such as that which Greek and Roman mythology sometimes ascribed to its gods, and quite certain that the term "son of God" as applied The first man to Adam conveyed no implication respecting his nature. In Lk. i" uXhq 'T<^iaxou, used qualitatively, seems is not other than man. obviously to have the theocratic sense, but as the immediate context shows, with a distinctly Jewish colouring, akin to that which in Rom. i'- < is expressed not by uVoq SsoO but by ex a%ip[i.czxo<; Aauet'S, and suggesting an
influence of 2
Cf.
The term is evidently nearly equal to Xpiaxo?. 7". In I" the meaning of the term is extremely difficult to determine with accuracy. Between the passage as it stands, including v.'*, and 3'8, there is a certain parallelism in that, as there Adam had no earthly
Sam.
Lk. 2"' ".
father
and owed
is
immediate activity
Jesus
human
father
But it can not perhaps conception to the special exercise of divine power. be inferred that the content of the term is in both cases the same; it is possible that in i" the writer thinks of this exceptional manner of Jesus' conception as differentiating him in nature from other men. If so, and if he thought that such differentiation of nature necessarily resulted from the
exceptional relation of
differently here
God
3^8.
from
product of divine creative power, yet as fully human as any other man, it can not be inferred as a matter of necessity that Jesus, with one human parent, becomes other or more than human, because the human paternity Nor should it be overlooked that in is replaced by divine creative power.
no other passage
of
N. T.
is
Of the impartation of the divine nature through a physical or biological process, or otherwise than in a purely spiritual and religious sense, or of its association with physical
cal fact or as physically conditioned.
birth, there
is
no
trace.
From
presump-
tion
against the interpretation which would impute to the author the thought that by virtue of the exceptional condition of his conception Jesus
is
was
it
improbable
yeVecrt; i^ av-
Mund.
t^ev
yap ^^eripa
Tov
(sc. 'ASttju.) 5e
Oebg eS-nfJU-ovpyrjorev.
from any question as to the integrity or originality of the passage t This is the case, aside But in fact, v.< is so out of harmony with the preceding context as to make as it stands.
it
probable that
it is
an addition
of a later
its
narrative.
The
hand than that of the author of the rest of the announcement to a maiden betrothed to a descen-
dant of the house of David that she will bear a son who will be the promised Messiah, so obviously implies that this will take place in wedlock as to leave no ground or occasion for the question, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" But with the omission of this
verse, of the
of rrj efxi/Tjo-Tevjaevrj avTiZ of 2, and of the parenthetical i? ivoixi^ero of 3", all which are probably from the same hand, there disappears from the gospel all intimation of a conception without human paternity or of a divine sonship conditioned on or related to a
414
that the term here
ciation of the
GALATIANS
means no more than
in 3",
word
is
term
and the
xvsu[ji.a
"Son
of
of
God"
God
the Highest, he
all
is
son of God.
This
is
also favoured
by the anar-
is
and
in
Rom.
8^\
human
paternity
by divine power.
sonship with power
And
is
if
this
be correct, then
1*
it
in
Rom.
i
whereas in
Mk.
asso-
its
origin
womb
Holy
Spirit.
g^" only.
3.
Usage of
the
Johannine
ivritings.
The
in the fourth gospel than in the synoptic gospels, but the usage
verse.
"the Son of God," as applied to Jesus, is, as in Paul and the synoptists, fundamentally ethical, marking him as in intimate fellowtitle
The
and the object of his love (iis 513. 2). This is also the meaning of the term [xovoyeviQi;, which refers not so much (if at all) to the
ship with God,
generation of Jesus
describing
i, cf. 3''
{cf.
i'- 1^)
him
as possessing the love which a father has for his only son;
and
for the
meaning
of the
term
i^*- ^^.
But
is
it
should be observed
title
[xovoysv-f);
not a predicate or
(to represent
of
by way
of comparison, "glory as
an only begotten
i^^
from a father
that in
[xovoY^v-f]; Osoq,
is
God (i"- i* 3". 35 ^22, 23, 26 ic'). In probably an approximation to the idea of the Christ,
The
later writer, indeed, desiring, like his predecessor, to exalt
by the addition
this
of v." excluded human paternity and threw a difJerent atmosphere does not destroy the original sense of the v., or even necessarily imply
that the author of this v. gave to the divine sonship a physical or biological sense. His exhuman paternity does not necessarily carry with it the idea of a divine nature
propagable by generation.
TITLES
and that
415
11" and 20" there is a manifest association, but not identification, of the term with the historicallyin the Jewish or early Christian sense, as in
Here, as in Mt.
i6i,
of God," not as a but as a term of additional and richer significance. In the gospel generally the term is thoroughly spiritualised, the Son being thought
naturally supplemented
mere
repetition,
and will of the Father (I's lo^s, etc.), and the functions which are ascribed to him being in no way political or
cj.
Acts
is
i),
(ji*.
539 836),
Even
not
great
work
is
life
as
an immediate pos-
session (338
(5=8) is
is
Word,
But
in i^s the
Word
is
most naturally interpreted as applying the term "Son" to There is at least no intimation that the Word becomes the Son by the incarnation. In 1413 and 20", on the other hand, " the Son " is a title of the risen Christ. Most commonly, however, it refers to Jesus in his earthly life (i"- " 333 5i9-2 6' 8' lo^s n^. 2? 171). In
lo'^ are
himself Son of
God"
0:oa), the
they sought to kill him because he "called God his own Father, making himself equal with God." These passages probably imply that in the view of the writer the Jews understood the term as he himself did, and, on the other hand, that for him it expressed the possession on Jesus' part of full though delegated divine authority
518,
This carries back into the earthly life of Jesus, and more emphatically and explicitly what Paul affirmed of him as the risen and exalted Son. In the fourth gospel the term "son of God" or "sons of God," ulbq Ssou or ulol Gsou, as a title of believers, is displaced (i^^ 1152) by Tsxva Geou, which Paul also uses as a synonym of ulol 6306 (Rom. S^^- i"- "). The exclusion of ulol Gsoj from Jn. is generally, and probably correctly, ascribed to the writer's desire to distinguish more sharply between Jesus and his followers than would seem to be done by using ubl Gsoii of them. In no book of N. T. does the term "Son of God" occur as frequently in
expresses
proportion to
ToO 0oj;
in in
its
4"
^'^'
55.
ifa,
12,
13,
20a ^yg
^\-^^
have
h ulbg
i'
323
520b
\^
auxou
Tt)ctou<;
Xpiaxdq;
i' 'Ir^aoGq
^12 5/_j
J,
ulbq auToQ;
ij^
in
4'
ulb<;
auTou 6 [xovoysvTjq;
5>2
in
222. 23 ])i^ 24
414
uPj^^
in antithe-
sis
with 6
Tcax-^p.
In
2 Jn.
Xpttjxbc; 6 ulb?
4l6
Tou xaTpoi;,
GALATIANS
and
in v.' b
ul6c;
The term is never from the use of the term in its various forms that there are those who deny that Jesus is the Son of God, and the term is, perhaps in part by reason of the controversy over it, thoroughly familiar and needs no definition. In themselves, these letters do not clearly indicate precisely what phase of its meaning is chiefly in
in antithesis with h xa-n^p. It is clear
anarthrous in either
epistle.
mind, but read in the light of the clearer passages of the fourth gospel, they
leave no doubt that
it
God," Jesus is described as being the unique The constant designation of God of God. as the Father, alongside of the term " Son " applied to Jesus, emphasises the intimacy of relation between them and the representative character of the
that
by the
title,
"the Son
revelation
and representative
Son. A comparison of i Jn. 2" 41= with 51 illustrates the familiar approximation of the term to "the Christ," but even the latter term has evidently largely left behind its Jewish messianic associations, and the functions of the Son of God are spiritual and universal. See i^. ^ 38 4^0 {cf. 2') ".
As tixm
God
not ulol eeou (i Jn. a^- ". 10 52), In Rev. the " Son of God," h u\h<; tou 6sou, is found in 2^^ only. festly refers to the exalted Jesus, but what phase of its meaning
sised, the context
It
is
mani-
In 21'
it is
said of
that he shall be to
God a
Usage of the other N. T. books. The phrase "Son of God" does not 4. occur in the pastoral epistles, nor in any of the general epistles except i
and
Jn.
is
laid
upon the
pre-exist-
ence of Jesus, and upon his post-resurrection exaltation and authority. In the former period powers above those of the angels are ascribed to him,
Qzoq,
In the latter
is
all
things are
of
put
spoken of as Son
God, and
the term
term
is,
Yet
in the
used of Jesus,
it is
or theo-
cratic sense
and
term
"Christ."
text only.
What
is
by implication
is
of the con-
See !
3 4^*
55.
6 7' 10".
also used of
upon the
God
chastens
those
5.
it
whom
he receives as sons.
Summary.
term
in a purely
ethical
Israel
sense, in
Sol.
which
it is
him
'EKKAHSIA
sources use the term with the article, marking
its
41
him
in
unique degree to express his consciousness of exceptionally intimate fellowship with God and divine approval, with probable suggestion of the conse-
quent duty and responsibility resting upon him. These documents furnish the best basis we possess for determining Jesus' own use of the term and
^conception of himself which he expressed
by
it.
It
is
impossible to trace
with accuracy and certainty the connection between the representation of Jesus' consciousness which underlies the usage of the synoptic gospels and
the Pauline usage.
But
it is
its
general rehgious use of the term and, alongside of the use of the term in
it
in a unique degree,
and with
consequent heightening but without essential change of meaning, to Jesus. On the other hand, through association of the term with "the Christ" and
Lord, through
with the doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus as the whom God exercised creative power,
the early church, surpassed only in that respect
Word
it
of
God and
the
came
to be in the
Pauline letters the bearer of the most exalted conception of Jesus held
by
by the term
it
Osoq
itself.
Yet
it is
to be observed that in
no passage
of
N. T. does
take on a clearly
apart from any
to this extent
by reason of exceptional
it,
such
facts,
True
to its O. T. ancestry,
ethical relationship
between God and Christ, and of the function of Jesus between God and man.
how many
of the passages
named above
in
used of Jesus and what sense the term bears when applied to him or to the \6yoq, who became flesh (Jn. i'- '*), it is not necessary to enter here, since the word is not so used in Galatians. On the question whether Paul so uses the term, the reader should consult S. and H.
esp.
on Rom. 9^ and the literature there referred Westcott on Heb. i^ and i Jn. 52.
to.
On
The
discussion of cwttqp also lies outside the scope of this work, since
it is
IV.
'EKKAH2IA.
lxx>vT]ata
and
auvaywyr]
sufficient to
show
(i)
that auvaywYY)
is
commonly used
of the
Jewish place of worship, or of the congregation meeting there, and exx>>T]afa, on the other hand, all but invariably of the Christian assembly or com-
27
4i8
munity, and
(ii)
GALATIANS
that exxXiQata most
The reason
I.
development
of the
two usages
more
difficult to ascertain,
its
'ExxX-rjcfa
denotes in
classical
Greek, according to
etymology,
"a summoned assembly," and by usage "an assembly of citizens summoned for legislative business." At Athens the term was applied to the
assembly of
all citizens,
were called
II.
xupiat; see L.
and
S. 5.
v.
In 0. T.
Sni-j.
the
assembly of Israel
corresponds
is
sometimes called
in
nnj;,
some-
times
The
latter
approximately
etymological
"to appoint,"
signifies
by appointtheir
ment.
BDB.
will
show.
Both have
most
of the
J';
Exodus
it
is
usually called
n'li''
22i'
BDB.
VniT
speak of
Nu.
16',
etc.),
n-^r,*
practically disappears
5"),
from Chr. Ezr. and Neh. (occurring but once, 2 Chr. nity of Israel is called Snp (2 Chr. 3ii Ezr. 2< Neh. 7,
III.
etc.).
In the Pentateuch, where both words occur frequently, the Lxx transboth by cuvaywYTQ down to and including Deut. 5". From this point on, with few exceptions, IxxX-rjaia regularly stands for ''^r^p^, auvaywyiQ
late
for
n-jjr.
Chr.
is
5,
where the
in
Sn-iu'^ n-jy,
but repre-
community
as of
money, or
of water.
IxxXirjcta
that the
Hebrew read
hn^^,
never occurs in the plural, auvaywyaf but the Syriac, which has the sing., indicates having reference to the Jewish community,
Lxx have
In Ps.
word occurs
of
the Jewish
1718, 48)^ in
community
as a whole.
ouvaywyiQ
occurs
three times
(10'
but
is
probably
a gathering together."
(loO stands in parallelism with cuvaywyat and apparently expresses qualiwhat the other term expresses concretely.
V. These examples, though few in number, indicate what N. T. itself far more clear, that by the end of the pre-Christian period the local
makes
'EKKAHSIA
Jewish
419
time widely developed both
congregations "synagogues,"
and
by
this
in the dispersion
by preference
use.
were universally known as au^ajbiyai and the term lx,xXT)ata, formerly used for the Jewish assembly or community, had fallen into dis-
There
is
perhaps no more probable explanation of this shift of uscommon use of xx>.-rjaia in the Greek-speaking world to
(cf. Acts 19") led the Jews as they spread through that world and established their local congregations to prefer what
less
On
the other hand, when, in the same regions in which these Jewish
own
assemblies they,
from the Jewish congregations than from the civil assemblies, with which they were much less likely to be confused, chose the term ixySkr^aia, which the Jews had discarded. If this be the correct explanation of the distinction between auvaywyr)
finding
it
more necessary
to distinguish these
and
ir-xk-qaioc
in
N.
T.,
it
easier
with reference to
covenant people of God, and the representation of this term This is in a measure confirmed by the use of in the Lxx by exyCkriaia. the term in Paul's letters. In all those that precede Col. it is used in a large preponderance of instances in the local sense (i Thes. i^ 2'* 2 Thes.
ji.
*
Gal.
2
I'.
"
Cor.
i6i'
i^ 417 6^
*
5.
7"
iii 14".
"
161).
"
In
Cor.
i
ii 8'
i*-
i'-
".
24
118.
12" Rom.
16.
23
Phil. 4^^
Phm.
Cor. ii''
i4'5'
"s. 33
a qualitative phrase meaning "in assembly," "publicly." For another instance of qualitative usage see i Cor. 14^ In i Cor. 145. " 23 The latter is probably the case it is local but perhaps used generically. In Gal. i" i Cor. io32 15' Phil. 3', however, we find tj ixyCk-qaia in i2-. used not of a local church but of the whole body of Christians. In Gal. i" I Cor. io'2 15' there are added the words xcO Gsou, and in Gal. i" i Cor. 15' Phil. 36 the reference is to the Christian commimity which Paul persecuted
Iv IxxXTjat? is
local
church in Jerusa-
body
by the absence
2")
of
any
local designation
(cf.
Cor. i^
Thes.
and
especially
by the use
to
of
precisely the
same phrase
exxX-nat'a toO
is
OcoG
in i Cor. io32,
Jerusalem
as a whole
impossible,
and
any
church improbable.
The
facts
show that when he wrote Gal. and i Cor., Paul had not only learned to think of each local Christian body as t) exxT^Tjata toO OsoCi in that particular place, but had also already formed the notion of the entire lxx)^TQata body of believers in Christ as constituting the hrip^ of God, ToO GeoiJ, and that though he used the expression but rarely, it was that
f)
420
GALATIANS
which came most naturally to his lips when he was speaking of his persecution of the Christians. In Phm. i-AY.'kriai'x is used in the local sense. In Col. there are two instances of the local sense (415. le), but also two perfectly clear instances of the oecumenical sense ( i ' -*). In Eph. the oecumenical sense only is found (i^^ 31. 21 5=3, 24, 25. 27. 29. 32). jn Tit. (36. 5i) itis apparently used in the local sense, but in 315 qualitatively and in $^^ generi^
cally taken.
1^3,
4.
In Acts
it is
S^-
'
112=. 26 i2i>
13^ 1425.
2^
22.
ii
but there
*^
perhaps in 20".
In iq"'
it is
company
like
n-j;;,
of people,
and
in 19^' of a civil
h^p^,
assembly in particular.
it is
In 7",
in the Pentateuch,
used of the
Heb.
2^2
is
a quotation from
Lxx
(23),
is
apparently qualitative.
it signifies
though translated by EV. " the bly." In Jas, 3 Jn. and Rev.
cally taken.
church,"
it is
IMt. 16^8 it is used in the oecumenical sense, in iS^' in the local sense, generi-
Both uses
from an early period, but the which there was a basis in the Jewish use of this term in
translation of
'?^P,
and
especially in
the
current
Greek usage,
is
un-
doubtedly primary.
preceding
On
all
Rom.
are
sx.xXTf)aca does not appear in the salutation, does not warrant the inference that in framing the idea of the oecumenical he
had abandoned that of the local church, for though the Christian community in Rome is nowhere in the epistle spoken of as constituting a church, this may very well be due to the fact that it was not organised as a single community, and in Phil. Phm. and Col. the apostle still uses exxXtjafa of the
local body.
Nor can
from
it.
its
etymology,
in this
way
Cor.
is
6^*-'^^),
of current usage
V.
In his
Tlistorical
Commentary
that
PauVs
'
Ramsay maintains
"when
'
Hom.
//.
XIII
64;
2. 52
XXI
22;
Thuc.
329D-330D,
and
(2XXo
Aristot. Polit.
(1263
a).
Ram.
The Homeric passages are indecisive, when he assumes that because Spveov
'I'xOuei;
(SeXXoc
to
42
than
indi-
a different species,
it is
indicated
by the word aXkoq. Similarly indecisive are the passages from Thucydides and Aristotle. The passages from Plato illustrate the otherwise well-known
fact that
aWoq may
be used to express not simply non-identity but qualiand akkoq standing in close
See also Eur. Or. S4sff.:
Tt'va
connection
Tz&goq olxov
may
be synonymous.
|
Yctp Ixt
aXkov eTspov
t^
xbv ixb
soyovwv
j(!c[x.(iiv,
ci^aoQtxi [i-e xP'h', "For what other house, other than that which sprang from divine nuptials, the house that descended from Tantalus, ought I more to reverence?" Cf. also Aristot. Metaph. 4. ^^ (ioi4a28f): ^tjxst'
dq
oiXkaq
cptovdq
kxepaq
tw
e'c'Bst
auTwv,
"no longer
Cf. 1. ^2, where aXka e't'Sei Bta9l?ov'ua. Of the important evidence of the Lxx and N. T. Ram. takes no account. The former (including that of both canonical and apocryphal books) shows that broadly speaking the two words are synonymous. Both words are used much more frequently in the enumerative sense, meaning "an additional one," than in the differentiative sense, meaning " (another) of a dift'erent kind." But both are used in both senses, and in six instances of pairs of passages, otherwise practically identical, Ixepoq is used in one member of the pair, and aXkoq in its parallel. Cf. Gen. 810 and 41^; Exod. S^" and 20'; I Sam. lo^ and Ezek. ii^'; Deut. 24" and i Sam. io; Lev. 6^^ and
{lit.
expressed
by
[i-qv^ixi
I is
Sam.
288,
On
aWoq
is
differentiative.
slightly
greater
the case of
is
aXkoq
(9 to i)
(8 to i).
More
decisive
the use of
aXkoq in Job 37^2 and Dan. 4' ["], and the regular employment of Gsol The very proe-cepot for "strange gods," whose worship is forbidden. hibition or reprobation of such worship excludes the thought that they
were conceived of as other gods of the same class as Yahweh, and marks
them
212,
as foreign, different.
iii*- =8
etc.
N. T. is much the same. The near approach of the meaning is illustrated in Mt. 16" i Cor. 121" and in Mk. 4- Mt. 135-8, compared with Lk. 8-8. Gal. i^' shows the use of exepoq in the additional or enumerative sense. But its characteristic meaning appears in Mt. 6^* Lk. 14" {cf. Jn. 141*) 23^' Acts 23' Heb. 7"- ", and esp. in Mk. 161'' Lk. 9" 2 Cor. 11*. In some of these passages oiXkoq might perhaps have been used, but no such instances actually occur in N. T. Most instructive is i Cor. 15''-", in which both words occur in apparently similar senses. Yet this also illustrates the real difference between the two
The
situation in
words to identity
of
words.
fiXTvOc; is
42 2
kinds of
flesh; Ixspoq in
is
GALATIANS
predicate to affirm that they are different.
it
passage
Taken with the other evidence, it leaves no doubt that for Paul exspoq suggested difference of kind more distinctly than did aXkoq and that the latter, in contrast with exepoc;, signified simply numerical non-identity. Cf. Rob. pp. 747 Jf.
Paul distinguished the terms.
for
room
VI.
ETArrEAION.
Homer down,
(2
The word
news."
e-jajy fkiov is
bear-
ing in extant exx. from the classical period the sense "reward for good
In the
Lxx
it is
Sam.
(2
41" 1822),
once at least
in
(in
"good news"
which sense it appears also in later Greek writers. Cf. and reff. given there. In N. T. it is used only in the singular, only in the sense "good news," and only with reference to the good news of salvation as announced by Jesus, or (and especially) as achieved through him. Its
usage
is
Eph.
Pet.
and
It is
body
of
message (Rom.
and which because it came to him from God by revelahim (i Thes. 2* Gal. i"- ") he called "the gospel of
^
God"
(Gal.
2
(i
I''
Thes.
Cor.
2-^-
Cor. 11'
Rom.
151'),
sometimes also
Gal. i"
2*),
Cor. 43
Rom.
cf.
(or our) gospel" (i Thes. i" but most frequently simply "the
"my
gospel" (Gal.
2^-
" Rom.
4" Rev. i4. So also, but with special reference to the message of the kingdom as announced by Jesus, in Mk. i^*- 15 Mt. 4" 935; perhaps also Mk. 131 Mt. 24^*.
Eph. I"
36 615 Acts 15' 2o2*
Pet.
II.
is
having soteriological significance, are themselves a part of the good news. So in i Cor. 151. This is more clearly the sense in 2 Tim. 2', and is perhaps the meaning in Mk. 14'. The clearest instance
historic events which,
is
in
Mk.
i^.
is
title
added by a
later
hand; see Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, ad loc; Swete, ad loc.) it does not denote the book, but the series of events and teachings that from the
point of view of the writer constitute the good news.
III. The term is also employed by metonymy in a practical sense. The message requires to be proclaimed and is accordingly not infrequently
known and
XAPI2
securing
its
423
calls it
acceptance.
In
this sense
Paul
"a gospel
g^*^''
of
God"
i'
Rom.
Cor.
43
212 9'^
Cor.
or "the gospel"
(i
Cor.
2
is
Cor. 8i
Phil.
2"
Phm.
cf. I
15)-
It is in this sense
9^3.
used in
Mk. 8"
It
10";
Cor.
should be observed, however, that these three uses can not be sharply They differ only in the emphasis that is laid on different meaning. aspects of one conception rather than by sharp discrimination of
distinguished.
VII.
I.
XAPI2.
as xatpw
same root
and xap&,
It
is
writers from
classical
Homer down
"attractiveness," the quality of giving pleasure (so in Homer, Hesiod, Thucydides, et al), "graciousness," "kindness," "good-will towards an-
other"
ness"
Hesiod, Thucydides, .Eschylus, Sophocles), or "an act of kindfrom Homer down); and the effect of kindness, viz., "thanks" "pleasure," "gratifica(so, very often, from Homer down), or of grace, viz., tion" (Pindar, Euripides, et al). From this last-named usage there arose, "for the sake also, the use of yapiv with the force of a preposition, meaning
(so in (so
of,"
"because of."
In the Lxx y^&piq is the usual translation of ]n (as Xso<; is of -'on). Like the Greek term in its classical usage, ]n signifies "gracefulness," "elegance" (Prov. 22" 31'), but much more frequently "favour," "apII.
proval," and, usually in the phrases which have no exact parallel in the classical usage of ^apiq, IDNSO, "to find favour," and ^n J^J "to cause to
obtain favour."
In
itself
the term has no religious significance, being men (Gen. 30" 39^1) and of
15").
The meanings
rare in the
Lxx and
III. In N. T., while retaining nearly all the classical usages, it takes on, under the influence of Christian thought, and especially in Paul, certain Its uses are: distinctly new shades of meaning.
1.
As
As
in
classical
'zriq x^P^'^^'i-
in classical
disposition, favourable
.
.
x&pixi xapa:
%a\ dtv0pa)xoiq.
In
word occurs
"to
from
the
eSpsTv x<^pi^)
favour," both in
another
j^";
under the influence of Christian thought, a different interpretation is put upon the same phrase as quoted from Prov. 33*); and e'xstv x^P'v (Acts 2"), not in the sense which this phrase
though
in Jas. 4, apparently
42 4
Heb.
jn nxo,
GALATIANS
a meaning found, however, in Plut. Dem. 7^
usually has in classic writers, "to have gratitude," but as the equivalent
of the
Favour
the ex(to
may
be individualised, giving
rise to
(2
Cor.
8),
meaning "this
(2
sort of kindness"
Cor,
g^),
3. As in classical Greek and Apocr. but not in the Lxx, and rare in N. T.: kindly feeling because of benefit received, thanks: Lk. b'^. 33. 34 I Tim. 1 12. 4. As in classical Greek and Apocr. but not often in the Lxx: an expres-
Cor. i6^
in the
classical
Greek nor
ently
towards
ical
men
This usage
is
illustrated in the
employment
and
xaxdc
;
(i^BCK-q\t.(x
conceptions (see
Rom.
4*- ')
in accordance with
(on man's part) and x&piq (on God's part) are mutually exclusive as possible
6^*'
"
ii*-
Gal. 5^-
Grace in
only
(a) to
God
men (Rom. 3"-" 5" i Cor. 1510 Eph. i. ^), and (b) to Christ (Acts 15" Rom. 5" I Cor. 16" and frequently in benedictions), inasmuch as the gracious attitude of God towards men is also that of Christ (2 Cor. 8' cf. Rom.
5 with Gal. 2^),
and
is
it is
manifested (Rom.
Eph.
'').
It is the basis of
men (Rom. 5*; cf. 2), in the justification of believers (Rom. 32^), in the blessings bestowed on believers (i Cor. 1* Phil, i^, and consummating the whole work (Rom. 52. i"). It is not possible to determine in every case in which the grace of God or of Christ is spoken of whether this special aspect of it as manifested to the sinful and undeservBut the prominence of this ing is distinctly present to the mind or not. thought in the thinking of the apostle Paul makes it almost certain that
the gift of Christ for
in his benedictions he thinks of grace as specifically divine favour to the sinner, manifested in Christ.
VIII.
EfpiQVT)
is
EIPHNH.
one
of those
both
it
of the classical
N. T. words which show clearly the influence sense of the term and of the Hebrew word of which
representative.
In I Enoch (Giz.)
in
5'
()
the
word
is
(cf. s),
and
But
it is
and non-desert
is
mind
according
to Charles, not earlier than the eighth century, the passage throws
no
light
on the pre-
EIPHNH
I.
425
state of
In
classical writers
of,
elpTjvr]
means "a
xdXejAOc,
harmony," "freedom
a[:i'
from, or cessation
ay.ptTo{
war or
k-K
ebtv,
wq xot'
eJpYjVTjq.
iXlT.Q-.oq
opwpev:
"Words
xoifjc-at
without limit are always dear to thee, as in days of peace; but war without
respite
is
upon us."
%a\
ol
Xen. Cyr,
Cf.
a^ouac:
3.
2^^,
dW
zipxiv-qy
^ouXo^Lsvoq
'AptJLsvtotq
XaXoacotq.
d'vBpsg
Hell.
xpbq iWrfkooq
another."
II.
7.1"; Plato, Rep. 465B: e^ptjvtqv "Men will maintain peace with one
has as
its
fundamental
idea "soundness," "prosperity," "well-being," and acquires the sense of harmony between persons or nations, freedom from strife and war, only
as a secondary meaning,
is
strife
range of mean-
ing in O. T.
1.
as follows:
thee,
In general, well-being, welfare: i Sam. 25: "Peace be both unto and peace be to thy house, and peace be unto all that thou hast." See also i Sam. 1718. " Ps. 29" i22- '; so the Aramaic '^u' in the salutation of a letter: Ezr. 41^ 5' Dan. 3" (4O 6 {^^), and in the modern Hebrew
(a)
Good morning." Sam. 3"' " Isa. 38^^ (c) Specifically, prosperity, success: 2 Sam. 11' Ps. 73'-. 2. Harmony, freedom from or cessation of war or strife: Josh. 9": "And Joshua made peace with them, and made a covenant with them, to let
them
live."
2oi''-
" Judg.
41^-.
In the positive
man
in
the turning
away
The
subjective
"quietness of mind," is perhaps less certainly 18"-^ vouched for, but is probably found in such passages as Gen. 1515 Ex. Ps. 4' 37" Isa. 321' Jer. 305-. The N. T. usage of sfpTjvrj follows that of the O. T. c^Su^ more III. closely than that of the classical elp-qvt]; it distinctly includes the meaning,
sense of " tranquiUity,"
"tranquilUty of mind."
1.
Its range of meaning and use is as follows: Harmony, absence of strife. (a) Between nations or between man and man: Mt. 10": [li] yo[i.iaT,-zs OTi Y^>.6ov p^aXelv etpTjvT^v Ixl ttjv yTjv- o'j/. TJXeov ^aXelv dpiiyqv &Xka [Kkiocipay.
2i'-.
(a)
Cor.
1611:
2^^-.
lo^'
Specifically,
spiritual
men
are
evil
God
426
GALATIANS
broad sense: Rom.
8": xb
5e
xoG
See also
Rom.
1620
Eph.
6^^-.
3.
ciled
Tranquillity of mind, which comes from the assurance of being reconwith God and under his loving care: Jn. 14": dp-qyqv 6c(flr][u u^jlIv,
T-f)v
e[jLTf)v
eJptjviQv
5iSa)[jLt
ufjicv.
Rom.
5^
15" Phil. 4^
Col. 315
The
sense,
necessity,
occurrences of the word in the apostolic salutations fall almost of by the fact that they are in salutations, under the second general
and by the association with the term "grace," as well as the evidently whole course of thought, under the second sub-
division.
IX.
In discussing the
to distinguish
(b)
New
Testament usage
word
attov it is
necessary
a{a>v,
among
it (a)
classical
usage of
with the union of these two in the Lxx and the JewishGreek writers, and (c) the idea of the two ages; this was of relatively late O. T. usage of
0^^';,
origin,
clear.
but whether
I.
it
soil is
not wholly
The Greek
1.
aldtv is
Skr. dyu,
Plato,
Hfe. So in Homer, Pindar, Herodotus, the tragedians,' Xenophon, and Aristotle. See ^sch. Eumen. 315, datvf).; S' atova Btoixvsiv, "to go through life unharmed." By metonymy it denotes
life,"
"one's lot in
in
Dem.
295" 6
[j,iXkhiv
"a generation," ^sch. Theb. 744; means "posterity," though possia. d. (Ditten-
bly
it falls
In an inscription of 37
(of
means "age"
human
history).
An
indefinitely
long time;
sometimes with
an adjective,
[i<x%p6q,
i-xa'jGToq.
3.
See ^sch. Supp. 574, 582; Ag. 554; Aristot. Mund. 5 (397 a"). In philosophic language, "time without limit," "eternity"; so notably
in
Plato,
meaning
lifetime of a
THE HEBREW
signifies
='?^i?.
The etymology
the meaning.
of this
In usage
"a period
of
indefinite
duration,
time without limits, except such as are set by the context or the nature of the thing spoken of." Cremer, accepting its relation etymologically to
aV^^,
it
as
or beginning escapes
perception."
I.
"the mighty
men
S^', etc.
AIQN
2.
427
Much more
which
is
frequently, time stretching indefinitely forward, with no is set by the author's thought of the nature of the
thing of which he
speaking:
Deut.
shall
151':
"He
shall
ever";
not depart from thy house for ever"; It is probably not correct Ps. 29": "The Lord sitteth as king for ever," denotes to say that in such passages as Deut. 15" and i Sam. i" the word
2
Sam.
121":
"The sword
a Hfetime, or that in Ps. 291 it signifies eternity. The extent of the forward look depends upon the author's thought about the nature of the
of, but the meaning of the word remains the same, "time bounded by no known or discernible limit."
thing spoken
To
used:
emphasise the idea of the length of the time the plural is sometimes habitation, a place i Ki. 8": "I have surely built thee a house of
ever"
(a^rjS'i;);
In the Lxx afwv, though occasionally used to translate ^y. and other words of nearly the same significance as u^'^';, is in so large a proportion of
its
its
usage
is
practically
meaning "from
aStbvoq (i
of old," such as
i6'), e^
2^0),
dxb toO
Chr.
alwvoq
alwvoq (Ps. 73 [jaV^), r.gh twv aiwvwv (Ps. 54 [55]'")"for ever," i. e., for the 2. It stands in prepositional phrases, meaning indefinite future, such as elq alibm (i Chr. 1615); ^k afwva atevoc; (Ps. 18
(Prov. 8"),
dq Tov alCiva. (Deut. 15" et freq.); dq -ubv afwva toO aldvoq (Ps. 144 dq ToCic; alwvctq Tfov a^wvwv (Ps. 83 [84]0; ^w? aibivoq (i Sam. i"); 01' Iwq ToiJ aluiwq (Josh. 4O; lax; tou aEwvoq twv alwvwv (Lxx Dan. 7^8); atwvoq (Deut. 5" Isa. 60"). meaning "an indefinitely long time," 3. It is used without prepositions,
[19]");
[14510 ;
-fj^xipaq
alwvoq (Deut. 3 2 7); vexpouq atovoq (Ps. 142 Xahq aldvoq (Ezek. 26^); or (b) in the
see also
Isa. 25^ Ps.
(Ex. 15I8);
65
[66]^
144
sS though in the last-named mean "of the world." In Eccl. 3", xbv alwva Btoxsv sv xapStt? ajxwv, it seems to stand by metonymy for "the conception of eternity," or "the ability to conceive of eternity." which a(a)v has its classical mean4. Quite exceptional is Ps. 89 [90]', in
Lxx Dan.
may
IV.
AGES.
Speculation as to the future history of the world and the beginnings of length apthe idea that world-history can be divided into periods of fixed
pear as early as the book of Daniel, and in Ethiopic Enoch (Bous. Rel.
d.
doctrine of Jud.\ pp. 278/.), but the clear evidence of a definitely framed
428
the two ages,
D''
GALATIANS
?"?'>,
this
ments
of the Ethiopic
Enoch
them new)
meanings of
b
"a
But in i6S
by Charles
thousand years.
op.
p. 568.
Hebrew original, we
If,
may
in Semitic literature
to its appearance in
^\'^'J,
Hebrew thought.
further,
aJwv
of
here
we have the
In
d,,
stance
this
word
sense.
the
by
woes
(61^ 65''
Hillel,
66, cited
280).
To
"He
life
who
acquires for himself the words of the law acquires for himself the
of the age to
come"
(Pirke
Aboth
ii.
is
cited
to
come"
is
These passages give no indication of the boundary -line between The age to come would seem to be the life after death. Similar ideas appear also in 4 Esd. (81 a. d.). In this latter book "this age" and "the coming, endless age" are clearly distinguished. See 42. "
loc. cit.).
69
gif-. 62.
new age
messianic times.
siah.
But in 7" the new age begins after the days of the MesThis seems to indicate that the variation of view on this point
found in later Jewish writings antedated 4 Esd., and this, in turn, sugtwo ages had been for some time prevalent in Jewish thought.
gests that tne idea of the
On
is
60
B. c.)
Lxx
238.41 313. 15 8'-'' 9" ii8- 15I6), adding the expression dq atova? (8") and showing a special fondness for the phrase tlz Tbv atova xa^ Irt, but never use the word in reference to the two ages. Philo uses afwv not infrequently for the period of a man's life. See Ebriet. 195 (47); Sohr. 24 (5); Ahr. 271 (46). He employs it in the usual sense of an indefinitely long
time,
in
elsewhere observed,
[j-sxpi
tou
Tuavroq
aldwq.
AIQN
See Cher.
2 (i);
429
(2) Iv to. yaO'
period of the world s existthe present age," the present aSvclans which the world came into bemg, before ence in contrast with the eternity p.n. 37 (6) occurs the expression as .pb (6vo,. In Prcem. et "described life, the part the earlier part of a mans .ov I'^xpoaOsv alcova, meaning et Abd Cf. also Sacr. Carm consideration. preceding the experience under the antithesis between this But there is apparently no trace of 76 (21). doctrine the various forms which the age and the coming age. Concerning what belonged to each age, see Da of took and the different definitions art. T., ii i7_7-79; Charles WJ. pp. 147 /; Schr. pp. 544 f; E. in HZ)5. Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature <'Eschatology of the Eschatology ,- chaps. V-Vlii. and Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian
Quod deus
sit 2
(i).
In Mut. nam. 12
^.a,
Wn
I 741/.,
V.
OF AIQN.
New Testament
in the
distingmshfor the most part clearly existence of three senses of the term,
able from one another.
I
The
An
s'^nse is
found, idea of indefinite or unendmg continupressing with varying emphasis the never. 'forever," or with a negative ance, are translated by the word is sf, xbv al^.a and most frequent of these expressions The simplest There are but etc.. 21- Mk. 3" which occurs in N. T. 27 times: Mt.
without assignable hmits. indefinitely long period, a period prepositional phrases, which,_ exas in the Lxx, chiefly in
This
"^
The
the
occurring two or three times a well-established idiom in N. T., 16" (?) Gal. i^ Phil. 4-, twice in the pasin the Pauline epistles: Rom. Other slightly varian 11 times in Rev. torals I Tim. I- 2 Tim. 4-, and The expressions referrmg to past in single instances. forms also occur means lacking: Acts 3" i_5' i <-or. 2 time are less frequent, but by no phrases " Col i^ Jude ^^ The great variety of prepositional Eph Vextraordinary the Lxx, Apoc, and N. T. is
still
For contemporary exx. of this Voc. s. v. The ^tensive si, .ou. s(, ateva, see M. and M., Rom. x- 9^ n- ^ ^or ii'^ Heb. 13;. occurs six or eight times: Lk. i'' but once m To^q (6>vaq t^Dv aJciviov, found
in Paul:
i
Cor. 8-
Cor. 9^
stronger form,
s[,
Lxx
is
employing
2
word in distinguished as two great periods of the world's history, lo" Lk. i6 h lpx6tx.vo,: Mt. 12- Mk. al^v o5to, and h al^v h p.aXa>v or 6 writbetween the two ages is doubtless for N. 1. i83o The boundary-line Mt. specifically indicates that Christ. generally the future coming of
this
One
of the
ers
then consummation of the age, doubtless of the ^ auvxaecoc too ato>vo,, the Mt. 13^- - 24' 28-. the coming of Christ for judgment, present age, is at meaning is, perhaps, not estab. In the plural, world, universe. This certain that it must be assumed all doubt, but it seems nearly
lished
for Heb.'i^
beyond and
ii'; cf.
(i8).
From
Pauhne
epistles
430
furnish the
first
GALATIANS
evidence for the acceptance by Christians of the idea of
expression "this age," b afwv ouxoq, occurs seven times
The
Rom.
in
12''
Cor.
i^o 2*
{bis)
'
3''
Cor.
4<.
In Gal.
6
i^
age," b
alcjv
evjaxcjc;
Only
Ephesians,
among
the epistles
ascribed to Paul, do the two expressions, "this age," "the coming age,"
In
2''
Tim.
atcjv.
6^^ 2
Tm.
41" Tit.
ages."
In the pastoral
age," b v5v
first
named
upon the
I*.
Note
i
esp.
Cor. i"
12*
4^^-i
as a
synonym
Rom.
The
Thes.
5"
Cor. 15"
{cf.
Eph. I" respecting the two ages, and that 2 Thes. 2^-'^^, whether from his pen or not, is substantially in accordance with his thinking. His thought about the character of the age to come, and the extent to which the apocalyptic ideas associated with it pervaded Paul's thinking, may be gathered from such passages as i Thes. 2^^ 3" chaps. 4, 5, i Cor. 1523-28 2 Cor. 51-10
Phil. !
I
>o
218.
Thes.
415
shows that the apostle believed himself to have the authority coming of the Lord. But it
is it
first in
the
Jewish Christian body. The absence of any indication of any controversy over the matter, such as arose over other points on which he held views
different
from those
community, and
the evidence of the early chapters of Acts that the primitive church already
make
it
many
fied
interpreters, ancient
and modern
as
is
{cf.
Frame ad
loc), hold,
to a
If,
more probable, it is, with Frame et al., word of Jesus, it shows, indeed,
teaching of Jesus himself.
that the apostle himself supposed his inheritance of thought on this point
to have
had
as
is
its
ultimate origin in
th:>
The
latter
view
is,
well
of the gospels as
they
it
by
The
latter leave
at
whether Jesus accepted the two-age eschatology or used its phraseology. The expression, "the consummation of the age," which Mt. 13''' "' " 245 and 282 ascribe to Jesus, is found in this gospel only. In
24'
it is
form without
this phrase),
{cf.,
and
this
with
its
however.
AIQNIOS
Heb. 9") makes
it
431
it is
an
is
inter-
pretative gloss of the editor, reflecting the thought of his time as to v^hat
The
situation
similar
which Jesus
is
represented as speaking of
Mk.
lo'"
Lk.
18'
Only in Mk. 10' does the oldest source attest this expression as coming from Jesus, and here the absence of this phraseology from Mt. (19^0, whose predilection for the idea of the two ages would have tended to prevent his omitting it while taking over the rest of the passage, makes it highly probable that it was lacking in the original form of Mk., and that it owes its presence in Lk. (i8'o) to the same impulse or
Lk.
168).
it
in Lk. 2o'<f-
In that case
its
presence in
due to the influence of the other gospels upon the original Mk., of which there is considerable evidence. Cj. Burton, Some Principles of Literary Criticism, p. 25; Sharman, The Teaching of Jesus about the Future,
is
Mk.
PP- 57, 93, 95, 256. In Mk. 419 the absence of the word "this"
makes
it
was
The phrases
"this age" and "the coming age" do not occur in Acts, nor
in
by the conception
two
ages,
but
it is
not
probable that here, any more than in the synoptic gospels, these conceptions are traceable to Jesus.
It is in
any
case,
what he believed to be the authority of Jesus. That it was shared by practically all N. T. writers, even by the author of the fourth gospel to a certain extent, appears from the passages quoted above from the synoptists, and from such passages as Jn. 6". " Jas. 5'- i Pet. i 2 Pet. 3* i Jn. 2^^
Jude
18
Rev.
i'.
VI.
AIQNIOS.
first in
The
times
adjective afuvtoc;
used, with
is
found
Plato.
From
Plato
down
to
N. T.
it is
no apparent change
its
"endur-
N. T., rather
classical
Sic.
Legg.
904A;
post-classical,
e. g.,
Diod.
general the
The Lxx
by means
of it only u^yj
432
^laQrjxf]
GALATIANS
(Gen. 17^
i
(Ex. 27" Nu. io), etc. The N. T., occurs first in Dan. 12^ The Apocrypha show no noteworthy deviation from previous usage. l,u}i] afcovtoq occurs in 4 Mac. 15' Ps. Sol. s'^ (12). A similar phrase, aiwviog dva^t'waiq X,(jifiq, occurs in 2 Mac. 7. In I Enoch 15^. 6 we find the phrase xveu[j.aTa
voixtixo.;
Chr. i60,
phrase
"^loi]
aSwvtoq, so frequent in
Z,(bvza a((ov'.a.
In N. T. the phrase
Acts,
l^wi?)
In Jn. and
Jn., in
and
The
Heb. g^^. Its force is, as everywhere else in ancient Greek, purely temporal and quantitative. Cf. M. and M. Voc. s. V. The qualitative conception sometimes ascribed to it lies wholly in the noun X,cdri, with which it is joined. It has no association with 6 afwv
2
feminine acwvfa
found
Thes.
2^^
ouToc;
or 6 pLsXXwv afuv.
It
came
in use,
and its kinship of meaning is not with them, but with the alwv Plato, meaning " for ever." See also in N. T., Mk. 3'^*
X.
'Eveaxtjc; is
'ENE2TQ2.
evtjTYjrxt, which in the pres. mid. means "to impend," "to threaten," "to begin," in the aor. act. "impended," "threatened," "begun," but in the perf. with the proper force of a perfect
of
of existing state
1
(BMT.
75, 154),
amples of
"to have begun," "to be present." Exappear especially in the participles evsaxwc;
2^8, g^c
and
IvsffTTQxtoc;.
Thus, in
classical writers:
^schin.
i.
i\x'y iveazrixoToq.
Aristot. Rhet.
6 Ivsottox;
In the grammarians,
also
9" (1366 b"), xaTOt xbv ivsczCiia xaipov. XP'^^oq signifies "the present tense." See
Polyb.
1. 18' i.
Xen.
60'^
i
2. 26'.
The usage of the Jewish Greek Mac. 12" 2 Mac. 31^ 6 12'. The
writers
is
the same.
is
See
Esdr. 96
participle
O. T. Apocr.
Lxx
(can. bks.).
Rom.
i
8'
it
Cor.
7" 2 Thes. 2^ Heb. 9'. The translation of RV. in i Cor. 7^^ "that is upon us," and 2 Thes. 2^, "is just at hand," is in both cases evasive of the
real
loc.
meaning, as
See
Toc xd:
is the comment of Robertson and Plummer on i Cor. ad Frame on Thes. ad loc. See also Ep. Barn, i': xa xapeXT]>vu66Ta,
Tj'^tv
xal
-^zxicztsiq,
ri\x.a,q
and
5':
2Tt
xal
tlq
xapsXT]XuG6Ta
-fjalv
eaocptaev,
xal
xa [xeXXovxa
i
In Gal.
*
xou
atovoq
xoO
hzczd-zoq
undoubtedly
of aiuSj/io?
is
refers
to
what
is
The
first,
given, which
refers
known
to present-day lexicographers,
in
by Severus
in the
words:
avras c/caAovv
01
*AnOKAATnTQ
more commonly
antithesis
called h afo)v oh-zoq;
for
433
is
"present"
S^ i
established sense of
future age, apparently a recognised and current usage (Mt. 12^2 Eph.
Heb. 60, makes it especially difficult to give to evsaxo)? aloiv any other sense than its usual one, "present."
XI.
comparison of the N. T. instances of the words dxoxaXuxTw and (pavspow shows that the two terms have a certain area of usage in common, so that in certain connections either might be used and the difference of meanmg be but slight. Thus both are used in general expressions about manifesting or revealing that which
is
Mk.
4".
Rom.
are used of the manifesting of Christ at his second coming, yet neither
frequently: Lk. 17^ (only instance of ixo/.a^vuxxd)) Col. 3^
2-83-.
Pet. 5^
Jn.
3^
is
mystery
of Christ:
Eph.
Rom.
maintained.
$avEp6o) throws emphasis on the fact that that which
jectively clear,
manifested
is
ob-
open to perception. It is thus suitably used of an open and public announcement, disclosure, or exhibition: i Cor. 4^ 2 Cor. 2^* 4io- "
Eph. 5". 'AxoxaXuxTw, on the other hand,
conceals,
refers primarily to the
removal of what
an uncovering, and
in
of the
word seems
to
be due to the thought of a previous concealment. But for some reason dxoxaXuxTw has evidently come to be used especially of a subjective revelation,
receiving
which either takes place wholly within the mind of the individual it, or is subjective in the sense that it is accompanied by actual
Rom.
S^* i
Cor.
21 14"'
is
illustrated
seem at
is
first
by
this fact
speaking of what
is
ydp
ixoxaXuxTsxat,
i.
e.,
men
way
of righteousness.
But
in 3", speak-
of
a fact once
for all
made
clear,
he writes
The
distinction
between dtxoxaXuxxexai in
less real.
and l^avspwaev
is
in
i"
is
less
because of the dxoxaXuxxsxat in v.i^ the apostle having in mind that, parallel
God, there
is
434
GALATIANS
a revelation of divine wrath, the revelation in both cases taking place in experience. The tense of sqjavlpwasv, on the other hand, indicates that he is summing up all God's past disclosure of himself as a single fact and the
use of the subject,
activity.
6 Qs6q,
in
Especially significant in
which c^xoxaAuzTO) is used, with 2 Cor. 41". ", in which cpavcpoco is employed. In i Cor. 2^'> a revelation through the Spirit is spoken of, and in Eph. 35 in the spirit: the latter phrase probably means in the realm of spirit, i. e., of the mind of the prophet, thus emphasising the subjective character of the revelation. In
i
the comparison of
Cor.
Eph.
3*- ^),
in
Cor.
4^-
1',
is
whom
In harmony with this distinction between the two words is several times used in speaking of the appearance of Christ in the flesh (Jn. 2" i Tim. 3I6 Heb. 9" i Jn. i^ (bis) 35. i Pet. i^o);
itself.
[bis]
^*,
and
Pet. 5^
Jn.
2^8
32),
while
first
and but
once (Lk.
also, in 2
17'";
2
.
dxcxaXux-rw
is
indeed used,
Thes.
of the
appearance of the
for
man
of sin,
but probably
here with reference to the disclosure and perception of his true character.
The
no room
is
human mind
mind.
'
ATOx&kui^iiq occurs
first,
Lxx:
Sam.
20'" (the
it
11"
22''^
42'.
In general
corresdis-
ponds
in
meaning
an uncovering,
by
ing perception (possible or actual) of that which was disclosed, but does not
so preponderatingly as dxoxaXuxTco suggest the idea of actual perception.
N. T. usage
1.
of dxoxdXuc|>'.q
is
as follows:
appearance or manifestation of a person, a coming, or coming to view; used of the coming of Christ, nearly equivalent to Ixt^dvsta: i Cor. V 2 Thes. I' I Pet. i'- " 413.
2.
An
Rom.
2^ 8i
16".
made
to a particular individual,
is
and as such
revealed;
i^*
by metonymy,
of
that which
ii.
is
revealed:
Cor. i4-
"
Cor.
is
12^'
Gal.
22Eph. ii'3'Rev.
In the
first
the person; in the second on the disclosure of a person or truth, the revela-
'lOYAAIA
tion oi
435
him
or
it
XII.
'lOTAAIA.
by the word Judaea
is difficult
The
to
determine.
the
feminine form of
(derived from
Supta, etc.,
it
Hebrew
n-.ini).
Mk.
was
in
i';
[i^])
being omitted.
the
it
of variable extent.
In
(i
used
territorial
sense
Sam.
kingdom (2 Chr. ii^). In i and 2 Mac. it designates substantially the same territory, as inhabited by the Jews cf the Maccabasan period (i Mac. 33* 5I8 950 jq38. ^y_ v.^"; ii2. 3* 2 Mac. i" 11^). The military succe.sses of the
Maccabees extended the
Great ruled over
all
Herod the
Idumsea
(inclusive)
on the south.
clear.
and Syria on the north, and to was king of Judaea. But the territory ruled by him was included under the
His
title
On
title of
Ethnarch
later,
made a Roman province and placed under a procurator (Jos. Bell. 2. 117 3I; c/. [81]), who apparently bore the title, "Procurator of Judaea" (Lk. From 41 to 44 a. d. Herod Agrippa I again ruled, Jos. Bell. 2. 169 [92]).
with the
title of king,
to his grandfather,
over all the territory which had previously belonged Herod the Great (Jos. Bell. 2. 215 [11^]; Ant. 18. 252 [7^] On the death of Herod Agrippa I his kingdom again came
title
19.363
[9==]),
and
when
158/.
[8^]).
(gxapxoq) of Judaea
"and
19.
363
[9^]),
rather
Ant. 20. 97
(51).
Also in speaking of
But cf. the addition to the kingdom of his grandfather Herod as Judaea
territory.
19.
274
[5']). And in Bell. 3. 35-58 (3'-^), speaking Roman War, he divides the whole country
of the
of the
in Bell.
2.
247/.
of Samaria, Galilee,
and
436
Perjea,
GALATIANS
and
in 2. 252/. (13") that certain toparchies in the vicinity of the
rest of
Judaea
2.
265 (13^).
Similarly in
i*
Acts Luke seems commonly to use Judaea in the narrower sense (Acts,
even excluding by implication Caesarea, which was the residence of the procurator of Judasa. Only in 2' 10" 26*" 28"
and
211"
a larger sense, inclusive of Samaria and Galilee, probable. Mt. 191 on the other hand (cf. contra Mk. loO bears witness to the inclusion of Peraea under the term Judaea. While, therefore, under the influence of the numerous political changes which Palestine underwent in the last century b. c. and the first century a. d., the term Judaea was probably used in at least three different senses: (a) the territory south of Samaria and west of the
is
Roman
I,
e. g.,
in-
the
him
the
of
Agrippa
yet alike in
kingdom of Herod the Great, and after the O. T., Apocr., N. T., and Josephus,
influence of his predilection for the
it
first,
usage.
Roman
2
Thes.
2^*
Gal. i"
Cor.
its
Josephus usually does, in narrowest sense, must for lack of decisive evidence remain uncertain.
in its
Rom. 15"
Roman
sense, or as
It
is
all
and
Roman
province of
Judaea.
XIII
CLASSICAL USAGE.
are derived etymologically from a and ^igoq, the
'A^apxfa and
d;;xapT(ivw
primary significance of the verb being therefore "to have no part in," but more commonly in usage, "to miss the mark," "to fail to attain." In a physical sense it is used in Hom. //. V 287, of a spear missing the mark, and
and Antipho. So also from Homer down in such derived senses as " to fail of one's purpose," " to lose," "to neglect." But it had also acquired as early as Homer and retained throughout the classical period a distinctly ethical sense, "to do
in other similar applications in Jischylus, Sophocles,
wrong, to
err, to sin."
&
S.
dt.\iAg-zri'^o:
The noun
^'^oLg-zia first
in his con-
temporary Sophocles.
physical sense, but both are used of non-moral defects and of sin in
mean
By its termination S^^^agxiy. would naturally the quality of an act or person, " defectiveness," " sinfulness." In
it is
Ts
xal
found in Plato, Legg. I 627D, Ivsxa 9'ja:i, "in the interest of the
.
.
right
and wrong
of law,
whatever
it is
by nature."
'AMAPTIA
T^v Ys 6p96Tr]Ta
will scarcely
xriq
437
StaYvtoasxat:
^ouX-qaW<;
"He
be able to discern the Tightness or wrongness of its intention" {sc. of a musical or poetic composition). For the latter, more ethical sense, see Plato, Leg^. II 66oC: XotSopstv ydp izg^y-xa-za (kyioc^cc xal xoppo)
xpops^T^xoTa
d^jt-apTtaq
ojSatJLci<; T336:
"For
far
it is
not at
all
pleasant to cen-
and
advanced
in evil."
But
it is
also
found in the more concrete sense of a "fault," an "error," either nonethically of an error of judgment, or ethically of a wrong deed; in the former In the latter sense it occurs sense in Thuc. i. 325, Soqr^q Se [a4X>.ov d^jLap-ria. in ^schyl. Ag. 1198, xaXatdq tuvSs d:jLapT(aq 56[xwv, "ancient crimes
of this house."
Antipho 127":
ou
Tfj
eauToO
dixapTi'tjc
dxlOavsv.
e[i.d.
Cf.
For discussion of classical usage, see Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art\ pp. 311 /.; Kendall in Classical Review, XXV, 195-7- For interesting exx. from the papyri, see M. and M. Voc. sub d;xapx<ivo).
Dem.
248":
xdvO' a x^xpoc/.-rat
xocl
daapxTjaax'
II.
HEBREW USAGE OF
^'^^>
^m- AND
^^^^.
'
These Hebrew words, the common originals of daapxcivw and du-aprfa in the Lxx, have etymologically the same meaning as the Greek terms, viz., "to miss (the mark)," "a missing (of the mark)." The verb is occasionally used fre(in Kal and Hiph.) in this original sense: Job 5" Prov. ig^; but far more quently in an ethical sense, "to sin"; occasionally against man: Gen. 42" expressly or by implicaI Sam. ig*' ^ but in the great majority of cases, Of the modified senses tion, against God: Gen. 2o Ex. 32^^ Eccl. 7" etfreq. The nouns are of the various conjugations it is unnecessary to speak.
always used in an ethical sense, signifying: 21"-"- Ps. 51' Mic. 1. An act of sin: (a) proprie: Deut.
possibly in
i
6'
Ki. 8" 2 Chr. 6' Ezek. iS'" Ps. 51= in the sense of "the committing of sin"; but cf. Ezek. 18'-'. ^\ which seem to show that even repentance was thought of as the turning from deeds committed or which
might be committed rather than expressly as the abandonment of a course (b) With special reference to responsibility and conof action in progress,
sequent guilt:
Zech.
2.
Deut. 15'
2415.
Gen.
iS^o
Nu.
16'-';
(c)
With
24"
^i.
special
Lev.
20^0
Isa. 531^
not so used.)
III.
In the
Lxx
but 21
Its
of these
is
a translation of
nton in
found about 170 times, being in all one or another of its conjugations.
meaning
Hebrew
Lxx.
practically identical with the usual ethical sense of the by dBtxsIv only em-
word
in the
minds of the
438
translations of N:pn or nN'on,
GALATIANS
Of the nearly 500 instances of &:^(Xi?-zioc in the Lxx about four-fifths are and the word has the same variety of meanas the
ing
Hebrew
terms,
except
that a sin
offering
is
expressed
by
word
.
dpLapx^a therefore
22,
retaining
See Lev.
g*.
?.
m. ".
g^^^
IV.
bks.).
The usage of the Apocr. is in general similar to that of the Lxx (can. The words are always ethical. d;xocpTdva> is frequently used in speaking of sin against God (i Esd. 1=* 65 Jdth. 520 2 Mac. y^), or in
sometimes against
thought of as related
men (Sir. y Ep. Jer. 14), and own soul (Sir. 19*, c/. Tob. 121); yet it is doubtto God as the supreme power whose authority it
it.
contravenes and
'AixocpT^a is
who
will
punish
used most frequently of deeds of sin, commonly in the plural (Tob. 3'' 5 Sir. 2", etc.), sometimes in the singular in the same sense (Tob. 3>^ 4*0 or qualitatively (Sir. 10" 198), occasionally collectively (Tob. 12'
I
Esd.
78).
In a few passages
2iS but esp.
it
the deed.
Sir. 8'
25="
means " the doing of sin," rather than 46^ It apparently does not occur in
Under the influence of the developing legalism of this period the concepamong the Palestinians in general tended to become legalistic, and sin to be regarded as the violation of commandments (Tob. 31-5 4s
tion of sin
Jub. IS'" 21^-", chap. 50; Toy, Judaism and Christianity, pp. 205/.; Bous. Rel. d. Jud.\ pp. 14s/., Ch.^P., II 9).
Atonement for sins is thought of as achieved by sacrifice (Jub. 6* 34I8), by compensatory, meritorious deeds, especially almsgiving (Tob. 4-ii 128. ). Of attempt to define in more explicit ethical terms what it is that makes sin sinful there is little trace.
or
On
is little
the other hand, there appears in this period an effort, of which there trace in O. T., to discover the origin of sin. Among the Palestinians
to
be found as early as
).
4 Esd. iT,'^^^- 4'o 748. 92 353 1434)^ the Pirke Aboth (IV i) and then frequently in the rabbinic literature. As interpreted, no doubt corclearly in
rectly, by Porter ("The Yeger Hara" in Biblical and Semitic Studies by Members of the Faculty of Yale University, pp. 93-1 11) and Bous. (op. cit., p. 465) this
impulse has
its
body
of
men.
The
Philo, affected
by Greek thought,
tracing
it
especially
by
work
of
demons
in the creation of
as
is
Adam and Eve were originally morally indifferent, every infant of their posterity, but made choice of evil. The indi-
'AMAPTIA
vidual
439
choose the
a free moral agent, tempted to sin by his body but able to See Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria, pp. 242/. A noteworthy element of Philo's doctrine is that intention is of equal imfulfilled portance with fulfilm^ent, yet does not become guilty until it is Sir. once traces the See BSSF. p. 163. {Quod. det. pot. 96-99 [26]).
man
is
life
of the spirit.
Eve
(252''),
and
2
but the
common
is
doctrine of
Bar.
Bar. once intimates the same (47^), (17^ 54", etc.) and of 4 Esd.
its
sibility
men began with Adam, and that death is not conceived of as excluding the moral responThe connection which the Ethiof the individual (2 Bar. 54"- ^').
that the sin of
is
opic
Enoch
finds
between the
sin of
men and
is
an
exceptional view.
into Satan
The transmutation
first
of the beginnings of human sin to the devil half of the first century b. c. (Wisd. Sol. 2").
full
On
in Bous., op.
cit.,
pp. 459-70.
V.
NEW TESTAMENT
USAGE.
The In N. T. both verb and noun are used in the ethical sense only. fact that there influence of the etymology of the word is to be seen in the always in fact, in the background of is still in some cases clearly, probably to but does not the conception the idea of a standard to which action ought (Rom. 3"; conform. The standard is usually conceived of as set by God
(;j_
1 23-32^
by the
civil
power (Acts
25^).
a[X(kpzri[ia,
The nouns
a^xxpr^a
and
a'.x&p-iriixa
which occurs only in Mk. 3^8. 29 Rom. 3^= i Cor. 6^' [2 Pet. i'], is always, &[iagxicc, which occurs in accordance with its termination, an act of sin. much more frequently, is never used in its strictly abstract sense, ''sinfulness," but, formally defined, has
I.
two usages:
which
is
The committing
v/ill
not in accordance
with the
52, 6b, 1
13,
of
God, equivalent to to
61
22,
:
Ixitxevwtxsv
23
tfj
see also
Rom.
512.
13.
20, 21
16,
Cor. i5^
used in this
to Paul
most of thc lustauces in chap. 7; S^- ^^- The word is never 5^1=^ Gal. 21^ Jn. 8" 16' Heb. 4'=2 Cor. sense in the synoptic gospels, or Acts, and is mainly confined
17,
18.
20.
(p)j
personified, being
and John. In this sense it is frequently personified, or semispoken of as one would speak of a person a demon or
e. g.,
.
Satan
atotxaxt
(see,
.
Rom.
61^:
^jltj
ouv ^aaiXeulxw
[lekt)
t)
&[iapTice. ev T(p
T-ji
Qv-qiM u-^div
ixT)8e xocpiaTtivcTS
Ta
uyiwv
a^xapxtqc),
or as a force
''
7''
"
rhetorically pp. 1 14-124, that Paul sometimes not simply justified by but actually personalises sin,-thinking of it as a demon, is scarcely non-personalised Dib. himself holds that he more frequently uses the word in a the evidence. th? line between image and sense, and that it is not possible always to draw with certainty
personifies
actuality.
440
GALATIANS
applied the term both to the violation of
to conduct of the same character produced, where there was no law, under the impelling influence of the hereditary tendency derived from Adam. To the former only Paul apparently applies such terms as xapcixrwixoc and xxpa^aatq (see Rom. $^*^- Gal. 3"); cf. the
Rom. 5-i shows that Paul known law ( cf. Rom. iisff) and
discriminating discussion
by E.
Baptist Review, 1880, pp. 216235. 2. Sin committed, the deed as distinguished from the doing of catum.
(a)
it
pec-
Generically,
xhv Xa&v
when no
the use in
reference
is
had
Mt. i":
aou a\
e&azi
Mk.
2'-':
a:pizvi(xi
a'.xap-zlxi.
This
all
Mt.
12".
(^ ?). 46 1522.
s
2^0
(and always
i',
Rom. 4^
gsb,
10
and generally
and generally in this epistle. It is used in this sense, in the singular and without the article, qualitatively (meaning, however, not sinfulness, but having the quality of sin) in Rom.
i',
(b) Specifically, when reference is had to a particular deed or a particular kind of sinful deed: Mt. 12": xaaa a'^agzia xal I^Xaa^r/^U d^sO-rjazTat xclq
dvGpcoxotq,
(c)
-f)
y*".
Jn.
d;jLvbq
toO
6eou 6
(d)
See also
2
Rom.
521;
39-
".
[x^
By metonymy,
is
for a sin-bearer:
Cor.
xbv
yvov-ra dfxapTiav
uxe?
It
^jxtov
d;xo:pTtjcv exo{i]asv.
diflference
obvious that the distinction between i and 2, having reference to not in content but only in point of view, may easily reach a
to cause
vanishing point.
sins"
means
Thus the context of i Jn. 35 shows that "to take away them to cease to be done; in other words, it is the
doing of sin that is to cease, but the writer has in thought objectified the deeds and spoken of them as things to be removed. So also in Jn. S-*, to
probably synonymous with to "die in your sin," both cases being to die while still sinning, though it is possible that the plural phrase means to "die in the condemnation caused by your sins." Cf. also Rom. 61 7^, and the exx. cited under ni^n, i (a).
is
in 8", the
meaning
in
of d;xczpTia, there
wide difference of opinion among those who used the term. Unlike such words as xopvefa, xXox^, and (povoq, which in themselves describe the external character of the deeds to which they refer, and 906vo<; and 6?yri, which describe an inward disposition, &'^apiioc by etymology and usage describes the acts denoted simply as failing to conform to a standard
(implied to be right), and
by God,
God would
therefore
'AMAPTIA
In the type of Pharisaism which finds expression
is
441
in Jub.,
and which
and
we
find
making much
of its specific
and
especially its
literally interpreted, it
and
sin matters
above on Philo).
He
Mk.
7"),
dis-
He
wrong in the statutes of the law, but in some more ultimate criterion. Yet he does not expressly state any single principle of sin to which all sins may be reduced. We may roughly classify the acts and dispositions which he reproved and evidently included under the term sin as (a) sins of the flesh and the sensual mind fornication, adultery, encouragement of sensual thought, (b) Sins of conduct or attitude towards other men: theft, covet:
(c)
Atti-
it is
presented, captious
(d) Atti-
demand
there
self
an element of
may
one's
in
which one
bene-
ficial
relations to the
community
of
which one
is
an integral part.
But
So far as the
would give
concurrent judgment.
In his writings the apostle Paul emphasised the internal, yet not to the
Under the conception of sin he included outward and inward thoughts and feelings: on the one side murder, fornication, drunkenness, and on the other envy, malice, jealousies, wraths, etc. In Rom., chap. 7, he seems to indicate that while he was yet a Pharisee there was the beginning of the perception that the law extended its dominion to the feelings as well as to outward deeds, and that wrong feelings as well as wrong outward acts were sin. The commandment "Thou shalt not covet," which in his Pharisaic days brought dormant sin to life was a prohibition not of action but of desire. Yet the clear perception of the spiritual character of the law and the transfer of emphasis in the conception both of righteousness and sin from the external deeds to the internal attitudes of heart and the principle of love apparently came only with his
exclusion of the external.
acts
conversion.
442
Yet he nowhere
GALATIANS
clearly indicates that
out for the generic idea of sin a definition corresponding to that which he
For while
in
Rom.
I'^ff
he
ground
of divine
is
condemnation
but
4"
similarly
in
accordance
with one's knowledge of good to be sin, but does not affirm the converse, and hence does not thereby define sin. The gospel of John takes fundamentally the same position as the synopInstead of defining sin, it assumes that its character is tists and Paul. known, and puts especial emphasis on rejection of the light, especially as manifested in failure to believe in Jesus, and finds in such rejection the ground of the divine judgment (3" 9" 15" i6). The statement of i Jn. 3* must be understood in view of the fact that it
is
who
justified their
unrighteousness on the ground that they were not under law; yet, in view
of the whole character of the letter, the law here referred to
must be un-
derstood, not in the legalistic sense of the term, but as denoting the divine
will in general.
Of the origin of sin and the relation of its origin to personal responsibility, is no direct discussion in the synoptic gospels, but there are one or two passages which have an important bearing on Jesus' thought on the These gospels record him as speaking of Satan or the devil as subject. tempting men to sin (Mk. i^* Mt. i;^^^- ') and of men as exerting a like influence on one another (Mk. 8''). He speaks of physical conditions But he never ascribes to any of these also as being the occasion of sin.
there
influences compelling power.
of
Indeed, in
Mk.
71^-23^
what
defiles
man
both
internal
and external
in the
man
It
is
of special impor-
tance to note that he does not say either that outward acts prove the heart
(that
is,
self,
which
is
to be sinful, as
its
{e. g.,
by heredity) and
defile
He
man
own
character and
as related to sin, they were not, according to this passage, the causes of
makes
sin a
Adam, and
passing
down
to his descendants,
both before and after the coming of law, not being imputed, however, where there is no law (Rom. 5^'*^ ). In the individual, also, sin has its
two stages corresponding to the two stages of the experience of the race (after Adam). It is first a dormant force (presumably hereditary and from Adam), then on the coming of the commandment becomes an active
NOMOS
force
443
gression
319).
apostle
there
exists
is
guilt only
where law
is
is,
in
Rom.
5"'
^*
against law
under law.
On
Rom.
7'-", its
cause
is
scious disobedience of
known commandments.
Personal responsibility
the
of
In
this
coming
of the
commandment (Rom.
7^-1'),
Yet the
Pauline d^xapxta differs from the yeger hara in that the latter designates
sin,
life
and impelling
sin,
one to
evil
and when used by metonymy denotes the impulse, tendency, or habit which is dormant till roused to life by the commandment. Nor is sin identified with the ycQer hara in Jas, i'^, where if 7ct0u[j.ta denotes the evil impulse it is expressly distinguished from sin, being made the cause of it.
The
fourth gospel, like the synoptists, connects sin with the devil; but
as clearly insists
upon personal
is
responsibility,
and
finds the
ground
of con-
demnation, which
p. 442.
See above,
Similar
is
As
in
But the fatalistic view is expressly and grounded in the possession other N. T. writers death is the penalty
is
of sin.
In
all
its
of right
perceived
by the wrong-doer.
XIV.
I.
N6[jL0(;
NOMOS.
CLASSICAL USAGE.
means properly "that which is distributed, apportioned, appointed." From this primary meaning to the meaning whicii it ca.me later to have, "law" very much in the present, technical sense of
(from
vlfxw)
444
GALATIANS
"a body
or code of statutes,"
the development of v6[xoq has not as yet been traced with sufficient fulness
and exactness
to
make
The
is
The
believed to give
of classical usage.
The word
to
first
N. T. times
lit-
at least, the general idea underlying all its uses in extant non-biblical
mind
Where
it first
appears in Hesiod,
of doing things
as an established
way
not in
all cases,
Op. 276, 388). It is distinguished from is not necessarily moral in fact, v6[jlo(;
Hes. Op.
276 and, on the other, from r\%oq, probably by the greater and necessity attaching to it. In later authors two distinguishable senses appear. On the one hand, there is found a laxer usage, sometimes closely approaching, though probably never quite arriving at, the meanfixity
may be
2.
On
i.e.,
means what
It
may
it (a)
human
origin (Find.
Nem.
10").
is
2^3
laws at Athens; Draco's laws were called by the older name, Qi[naxq.
2.
'i^ioq,
it
may
denote a written
civil code,
v6[jloi;
body
ethical
and common
i
to all
b^^sff).
men:
Aristot.
(2)
(1421
According to
L. V. Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, p. 202, the sharp distinction of
eGy]
"customs," from
e. g.,
vopioc;
times,
Prot.
of
at times distinguished from v6[xo<; (Flato, 337D: "For by nature like is akin to like, whereas law is the tyrant mankind, and often compels us to do many things that are against
6. 47'.
(pucti; is
Folyb.
basis of
nature"; Aristot. Eth. Nic. I 32 [1094 b'*]); at other times it is made the vd^Aoc;, e. g., by the Stoics. But the term w\j.Qq cpuasox; did not,
(cf.
Law
in Ethics,
chap.
I, 4,
it
where
probably means simply "demands of nature") mean to the ancient of nature" means in modern scientific terminology, a
NOMOS
of events in nature.
445
formula expressing the observed regular recurrence of an event or a sequence The meaning, "musical mode or strain," "a kind of ode," in which vo^jlo? is also found, is easily derivable from the etymological
ground meaning of the word. It is, in fact, merely an application of this meaning to music. It seems never to have had any appreciable influence upon v6[A0<; meaning "law."
II.
HEBREW USAGE OF
m;n.
nmn
1.
{cf. n-\"in,
given to another.
an oral direction or decision, as of priest or judge: Deut. 1711 Mic. 3", and Driver, Joel and Amos, p. 230, in Cambridge Bible (b) A formulated rule or statute, concerning a specific for Schools), matter: Lev. 6: "This is the law of the burnt offering." See also Ex. 12"
etc.,
Lev. 14^ Nu. 5", etfreq. in Lev. and Nu. in the sense "custom," "manner.''
2.
In
"My
commandSee also
a
ment
of
God announced by
prophet; reference being had not to a code or definitely formulated body of statutes, but to the will of God in general, as defined by the context.
will of
God: Mic. 4": "For out of Zion shall go forth Yahweh from Jerusalem." See also Ex. 13'
ii" 2
s"^*
"
Ps. 408
()
42^4, etc.
Jer. 6^'
Lam. 2K
3.
definitely
but
Hebrew
conception of the origin of the law, conceived of as divinely authorised: (a) The substance and content of such law; used especially of the law of
Moses
ethical
whole or in part: Deut. i^ (and elsewhere in Deut.), of the body of and religious instructions, contained in that book; Ex. 2412, the law written on tables of stone; Josh. S'l 2 Ki. i4 23", the law of Moses; (b) The book containing the law: I Chr. 2212 Ps. 78^' 1" Dan. g^", et freq.
in
Neh.
8"-
In
Ki.
2'
Chr.
23I8, also,
the reference
is
in
a sense to
still
book
NdfjLoq,
used by the
n;^n,
far
most frequently
for
nnin,
but
also
occasionally for
from
a
niin,
chiefly in
specific statute,
446
law
of a
GaLATIANS
Tou
vd^JLOv
heathen nation or the royal decree of a heathen king: Ezr. 7": GeoCi xal v6ixov xou ^aatXeax;. Esth. i^% xaxa "zouq v6;j,ou(; Mt]2o>v
Esth. i", b
vojjloc;
xal Ilepaoiv.
IV.
NoiJLoq in the
in the
Hebrew^
and
on the one side the meaning "direction," "instruction," is disappearing, the word tending to denote more constantly a definitely formulated statute or code, and on the other in that
v6(jLo;
in the
Lxx,
chiefly in that
law
1.
in the abstract,
of its expression.
i. e., apart from the question of the particular form Usage may be formulated as follows: formulated statute or decree, whether ethical, religious, or civil.
Mac.
-coO
^aatXitoc;.
v6[xotq auxuv.
13'
Wisd.
Iv
auviaet
xpfasw? xal
Mac.
2"^^
31,
etc.
It
is
Mac. that it commonly uses the term v6[jLot (pi.) to denote that body of statutes and instruction which elsewhere in O. T. and N. T. is usually called r\'vr\, votioq (sing.). 2. Ethical and religious instruction. This sense, so frequently expressed by nnin, is rarely expressed by v6[Loq in the Apocr. In Sir. 44^': "Abraham kept the law of the Most High," " law " means in general "will,"
peculiarity of the style of 2
In Wisd.
68 v6uloi
But it is evident that in this period v6[xo(; is surrendering the general meaning "instruction" and coming to denote something more formal and fixed. Used 3. A formulated body of statutes, ordinances, or instructions. with reference to: (a) The law of Israel, usually spoken of as "the law of Moses," the "law of the Most High," or, simply, "the law." (i) The content of the law, usually its rules and precepts: i Esd. i", Iv tw vd^Lw
8' Tob. i^ (S) Wisd. i6 Sir. IxtxixaxTat Iv x(p v6;jlw. 2" 9" I Mac. !" 62. se, 57 2 Mac. 1* 2^. Ps. Sol. 141 et freq. In Sir. it is sometimes used with special reference to the ethical contents of the law in distinction from its ceremonial prescriptions: Sir. 35 ':
xupfou.
5", ix;
prol. {bis)
See
also 32".
law.
(b)
is
(ii)
Mac. 2^8 lo"*, it refers especially to the promises of the The book containing the law: i Esd. 9"- "" *; Sir. prol. ter.
In
2
With primary
of its
reference
still
its
on the form
form
in
embodiment
which
it
is
by reason
Apocrypha, to draw a
sharp line of distinction between the instances that belong here and those
N0M02
which
2^"
447
some
of the
fall
under 3 a
(i).
But
oo(fiqi
instances in Wisd.
6* Sir.
ig''":
and
is
Sir. of
Wisd.
ev K&afi
v6[xou, see
also
v.^*.
This general
especially
ckar when with descriptive epithets added Sir. 45*, vo^jLot; i^wfjs xal e-Kiaxri^iriq, "a law
of life
4.
and knowledge."
w[ioq denotes a force or custom which, being put forth
By metonymy
is
Wisd. 2";
cf.
14'^
in the
n^n
in
Lxx and
will to
or custom.
demands
V.
Usage, p. 444,
fin.
NEW TESTAMENT
USAGE.
In N. T., as in classical writers, O. T., and Apocr., v6[i.oq is employed in the imperative, not in the declarative sense. It is not the formula expressing a general fact, but a principle, or statute, or body of instruction, which
Any exceptions to this statement are due simply to a word as the equivalent of ypa?-^ or to conscious metonymy. The conception that law proceeds from God so pervades N. T. that the word v6iJi,oq itself conveys the thought of divine law unless the context Especially by reason of the extensive gives it a more general reference. and varied use of the term by the apostle Paul in his controversial writings, its usage is much more complex than in the O. T. books. To understand its development it is necessary to have in mind the points at issue in the controversy in which Jesus and, even more explicitly, Paul,
calls for obedience.
and law.
reference of the term among the Jews was, of course, to the system ascribed to Moses. This was par eminence b vd^jioi;. On the basis of this system Pharisaism had erected what at least tended to become a rigid external legalism, according to which God demanded obedi-
The common
legislative
men
Great Accountant.
among
must, of course, be recognised that different views prevailed among Jewish, and even Pharisaic thinkers, as is illustrated, e. g., in the more strenuous legalism of the book
of Jubilees,
liberal
own
some of them closely approximating cerBut the evidence seems to indicate that the view against
44^
The
GALATIANS
Gentile did not obey, he did not even know, the statutes of the law; he had therefore no standing before God; the publican did not conform to the statutes as Pharisaism interpreted them; therefore he was accursed. This rigid legalism was indeed tempered in one respect, viz., by the ascription to God of favouritism towards the Jew as the son of Abraham, whose covenant relation to God was sealed by the rite of circumcision,* a qualification however, which served only more completely to de-ethicalise the law. Over
against this legalism reached
by an
exclusive emphasis
on
statutes,
both
Jesus and Paul discover in the law certain fundamental ethical principles,
life
and declare that in them the law consists, and that by the subjection of the to them men become the objects of divine approval (Mt. y'^ 22"
Gal. 5": 6 ydp xag y6[ioq Iv
evl
X6yi(i.
Rom.
138; 6
e-repov
There thus arises a purely ethical sense of the word, representing a conception of law at the opposite extreme from that held by
vd^jLov jusxXiQpwx.sv.
the Pharisees.
of
The
rested
Abraham according
of
upon an interpretation of the covenant with which God had made certain promises to the seed
Abraham.
which the legahstic language of O. T. rendered somewhat difficult, Paul at times, and to a certain extent, takes the Pharisaic opponent on his
first that it was not covenant not of circumcision and with the circumcised seed of Abraham, but of faith and with those that entered into relation with God through faith. This is the substance of his conten-
but
ethical, essentially a
is
practically
Again he contends that this covenant of faith was not set aside by the law that came in through Moses, but that it remained in force through the whole period of the law, conditioning the law, so that, whatever function the law had, man's relation to God was never determined by law alone viewed as the expression of a legalistic system. This is his contention in Gal. 3^^ In this argument
which Paul contended was very influential in his day, and it is in any case that with which in our effort to understand N. T. usage we are chiefly concerned. Cf. Bous. Rel. d. Jud.^,
"Was wir von Hillel und Schammai und ihren beiderseitigon Schulen stimmt ganz zu dem Bilde das wir von den Schriftgelehrten und Pharisaern zu machen gewohnt sind." * The nature of the position which Paul was combating appears in the fact that the stress of liis argument in Rom., chap. 2 (esp. vv."-"), is against the thought that the Jew, just because he is a Jew, possessed of the law and circumcised, is secure of God's favour. Only as an appendix does he in 39", in answer to the contention of him who might set up the claim of sinlessness, declare that there is in fact no one who can successfully] make such a claim.
pp. 136-150, esp. p. 145:
wissen, das
N0M02
449
Paul does not deny but rather admits that the law, if viewed by itself and in detachment from the ethicalism of the covenant that preceded it and prop-
and from the ethicalism that underlay its very statutes body of statutes demanding obedience and denouncing penalties on all who failed fully to obey them; he could himself speak of the law in this sense (Gal. 31. ") What he denied was that the law so understood was ever intended to constitute the whole and sole basis on which man stood before God and was judged by him. But it will be evident that while Paul's essential view remains unchanged, the precise meaning of the term as used by him varies not only according as he is viewing the law as the embodiment of ethical principles or as a code of statutes,
erly conditioned
it,
as,
it
while bearing in
in distinction
statutes, he thinks of
by the ethicalism of the covenant. it be borne in mind that Paul also maintained that the law as a system of statutes ceased to be in force when Christ came, we may perhaps aid ourselves to grasp the apostle's thought by the following diagram
now
Abraham
Moses
Christ
g k
1
Let abed represent the covenant with Abraham, never abrogated, interpreted by Paul as essentially ethical in character and permanent. Let klmn represent the same covenant as the Pharisee interpreted it, making
it the basis of a permanent favouritism of God towards Israel. Let ef and gh together represent the law that came in through Moses; ef its statutes, gh its underlying ethical principles. The statutes according to Paul are
in force
validity.
from Moses to Christ; the ethical principles are of permanent But it is not always pertinent to make these Cf. also Mt. 518.
is
distinctions.
If,
then, Paul
speaking in simple, historical fashion without reference had gathered around the term "law" and compelled
29
450
discrimination between
Its
GALATIANS
different phases
and
aspects, or
if
in the
midst
he and
his
opponents had
its
in
mind, however
much
interpretation of
in
toCi
through Moses.
v6[jlou.
This
in
is
Rom.
2-8, xaTTixou^Levo:;
sk
is
So also
Rom.
ri\x7.gxov,
except that he
God
law
But Rom.
2^2-16
this conception of
The
teaching of this
prime importance for the understanding of Paul's conception of law and his use of the term. In v.i^ Paul classifies sinful men (those predescribed
Ik
xfj
in
v.*
as
ol
1^ eptetaq
xal
ixEcGouvTet;
t^
dXTQeefqc
:rst06tJLevoc
dBcxt'ot
and
in v. as o\
xaTspya^^o^jLevot
zh
v.ay.o'i/),
into
two
and
It
is
evident
word "law" which represents someand the context makes it clear that this is law such as the Jew possessed, law definitely promulgated in concrete objective form. But v.'^ affirms that all in fact possess law, that those
therefore that there
all
a sense of the
possess,
men
who
i.
[i.i]
exoy-ze^, are in
form as the Jews have it. It does not indeed follow that the term v6[ioq as used in the expression eauxolq etalv v6\i.oq signifies specifically a law not in objective form. Indeed it is more probable that the word v6(xoq in this phrase is broad enough to cover any revelation of God's will, whether
definitely
ol
promulgated or not.
vojjlou
For
xoi
in the connection of
v.", ou yocp
dy.po3CTal
ctxatot
xapd
Ge(p,
v6[i.od
dXX'
ol
icotTjTal
v6[xou
Sixatwis
OTjjovTat,
with
v.^"^^ it is
involved that
law as
which
is
the distinguishing
mark
of the
Jew; and
v.i'
that vopLou of
possessed
is
lyovzoL v6tJL0v
v6[xoq in
that eaurofq
But
will
if
superfluous to
give to
is
more
specific sense.
For though
in fact
it
clear
from the
not in has
fur-
plainly not
by
the term
it
which
in
common
with
vd^jLoq
previously spoken
of.
employed
v6[xoc;
law both in a
N0M02
more and
revelation
in a less specific sense, using it either to denote
is
451
an objective
found
in O.
meaning
broad enough to include both such a law as that of O. T. and the law which the Gentile possessed in himself. This use of the term, therefore, not only ignores the distinction between ef and gh, but also eliminates from the meaning of the term all thought of the form in which the will of God is
men. importance to observe that when Paul is thus speaking of divine law in the most general sense, he afhrms that the doers of law are justified before God, Rom. 2^^. Nor can it be affirmed that this is a purelytheoretical statement of which there are and can be no examples. For not only is there no hint of hypothetical character in the categorical statement of the verse, but the impossibility of joining v.", Iv ^ r^xigq. xpt'vet & 6s6?, etc., with V.15 compels the recognition of vv."- '^ as a parenthesis and the
to
made known
But
it is
of capital
connection of
v.i^
passage
is clearly established. This view of the moreover confirmed by the self-consistency which the argument thus acquires, and by the perfectly objective character of the statement to the same effect in vv.-", in which the apostle clearly affirms that God will is
men according to the motive and conduct who by patient continuance in good work seek
judge
incorruption, will render eternal
life,
of their lives,
for glory
and
is
This
will.
saves those
(C/.
who work
righteousness,
Acvcatoq, etc.,
whose purpose
to
do God's
detached note on
II A. 4, p. 462.)
between them.
otherwise he seems to have clearly before him the distinction between the specific statutory requirements of the law and its ethical principles; yet he
voi^oq to either
is
of
the law as a body of statutes, distinct alike from the covenant, ahc, which preceded them and ran parallel to them, and from the element of ethical
which underlay and ran through them, a legalistic system which constituted not the whole of that regime under which by divine appointment the Jew lived from Moses to Christ, but an element of it, then
principle, gh,
he
means by
e((j(v'
v6txo<;
a purely
legalistic
2,^'>-
system.
oaot
This
e^
most
":
yap
tou
Ipytov
v6{JL0u
uxb
xaxapov
toT<;
v6[X(j)
yiypaxTat
yctp
oxt
kizt.v.cx.'z&.gct'zoq
xaq Iq oOx
xot^ffat
l[X[xlvet
xaatv
Ss
Iv
yz'^goi.^x^ivoi.q
xcp
^c^Xftp tou
v6^ou
6eq)
a'jxi.
8ti
ouSel?
BixacouTat
xapot
xqi
S^Xov,
452
etc.
GALATIANS
in this
and other
2"-'^
is
like passages
Paul
is
not using
v6'tJi.0(;
in the
as in
is
Rom.
justified by works of law and as clearly implies that the reason demands an absolutely complete and full obedience to its demands, such as no man in fact renders, while the other implies that they and they only are accepted of God who are doers of law, thereby distinctly implying that in the actual judgment of God men are approved for doing the things that are required by the law. The explanation of the difference
lies in
is
speaking
is
not of law in
its totality
and actuality
which he evidently accepts as expressing the will of God (312), but of the legalistic element in O. T., isolated and set off by itself, that element which if it were expressive of the whole will of God would be simply a sentence of In the other passage, on the contrary, he is speakuniversal condemnation. ing of the revealed will of God as a whole, whether expressed in O. T. as a whole or revealed in the conscience of the Gentile, but in which in either case God is disclosed not as judging without mercy, condemning every one
in
whom
is
who does good, who with patient continuance in well-doing seeks for glory and h mour and incorruption, and condemning those who work that which Of law in is evil, who disobey the truth and obey iniquity (Rom. 2-"). the sense which is gained by isolating the purely legalistic element of
O. T. and speaking of
understood.
It
is
it
by
itself,
Paul can say very different things from God broadly and justly
of great
law
importance for the understanding of Paul to recognise that was an actual, not a merely hypothetical exist-
was never alone and by itself the basis of God's action There never was a period of pure legalism except in the erroneous thoughts of men. Might not one argue in somewhat the same way about the law of war? Had he maintained that this legalistic element thus isolated in fact before the coming of Christ held full sway in God's government of the world, unqualified by covenant or ethical principle, he would have predicated for this period an absolute legalism, which would have pronounced sentence of condemnation on every man who in any It might even seem respect failed to fulfil all the commands of the law.
ence, yet that
towards men.
But against
that in this very passage he cites O. T. as teaching the precise contrary of this legalism, making faith the basis of acceptance with God 2-i8, he likewise clearly makes the (Gal. 3"); and second, that in Rom.
urged:
first,
basis of divine acceptance, not legalistic a perfect conformity to all the things written in the book of the law ^but ethical, character as shown in
N0M02
purpose and conduct.
in Gal.,
of
453
his
we
deals with
men on
the basis
such legalism, or that law so understood actually held unqualified sway, but only that law in that sense in which it can be set over against the other
teaching of scripture, pronounces such sentence. It is necessary, therefore, affirming of it that to understand him as here isolating law in thought and which is true of it as a legal system pure and simple, but not affirming that
it
Had
bined
constituted the total basis of God's relation to men. Paul qualified this absolute legalism by the Pharisaic notion of God's
covenant (that is, if separating ef both from be and from gh, he had comhave used the term pracit with Im and called this the law), he would represent God's tically as the Pharisee used it, and if he had beheved this to He doctrine. actual attitude to men, he would have held the Pharisaic
does indeed show that he
the term in this sense that
if
is
familiar with this notion of law, and in speakRom. 2l^ he comes so near to using
we should take
we should not seriously misrepresent his thought the term as representing this Pharisaic thought. Yet perhaps best to suppose that Paul was using the term in a
for
him a
law as an
But Paul did not always emphasise the purely legalistic element when he resolved law into its elements. In truth, it was rather the element of
ethical principle
ef,
that
represented for Paul the true will of God, the real \6[ioq. And when he was free from the stress of controversy which compelled him to shape his word use of terms in large part by that of his opponents, he could use the
This he
does in Gal.
S^*'-
T^P
16yi^ xexX-rjpwTat, Iv
tw
138:
term yap dcyaxwv xbv Ixspov v6tiov xexT^Yipwxsv. See also v.^". That the used in the former passage in a sense which not simply emphabut does so to the sises the ethical principle which is at the heart of the law,
v6ixoq is
the fact exclusion of the statutory requirements of the law, is clear from to yield obedience that, while the apostle fervently exhorts the Galatians not
to the
command
here speaking of
the element of
be circumcised, he clearly implies that the law as he is In this passage, therefore, is to be fulfilled by them. ethical principle, gh in the diagram, is isolated and treated
to
it,
And this meaning once clearly established by such passages as those cited is then seen to satisfy best the requirements of the context of not a few other passages.* See 2 (d), p. 458.
as constituting the law.
* That the line of discrimination between law to be fulfilled and law not to be obeyed is and ceremonial between the ethical principle and the statutes as such, not between ethical by Paul's bold application of his principle in i Cor. 6-2 (cf. also lo^'), where
statutes,
is
shown
he refuses to condemn even unchastity on the ground that condemns it because it destroys one's fellowship with Christ.
it is
454
GALATIANS
It might seem that this meaning of the word is identical with that assigned above to Rom. 2'^, eauxot<; efalv y6[i.oq. Nor is it needful to suppose that the law as spoken of in the two classes of passages is of different content. of the concept are, however, different in the two cases. The which Rom. 2^* makes is (a) that between law objectively promulgated, and law, whether objectively promulgated or not, v6tJL0(; in Ta [Lii vdixov e'xovxa signifying a law thus objectively promulgated and
The elements
distinction
v6^oq in
eauToTs
e?alv
vofjLoq,
denoting a disclosure
it is
of
the
divine
will
so promulgated or not.
and
h y6[ioq
in mind is (b) that between statutes and ethical princimeans the law inclusive of ethical principles, and exclusive
These two
it is
dis-
tinctions are
by no means equivalent;
for,
not
men
conduct
it is
reflects
than in a multiplicity of specific statutes. Indeed it is of a law definitely promulgated that Paul seems to be speaking in Gal. 51^ and 6=. Moreover,
the two passages differ in this, that, while in
at all present to the mind,
Rom.
2^*
distinction (b)
is
not
paradox of
and distinction (a) furnishes the solution of the the sentence, in Gal. 51^ on the other hand, distinction (a) is
it is
in fact a definitely
is
promul-
is
distinctly
and
vd^xoq
For the formulation of a complete exhibit of N. T, usage account must also be taken of the fact that most, if not all, of these various senses of the word may be used either specifically with reference to the law in question,
this definiteness of reference
article, or
with-
article, qualitatively,
would be denoted by 6 vd^xoc;, but the word describing it but as a law or as law, having the qualities for which the
certain less frequent senses
term stands.*
Such an exhibit must also include word not specifically mentioned above.
of
The arrangement
that which
is
meanings
is
in the
main
The
is
first
meaning, though of
both
of
the Greek
v6[xo<;
and
of the
See Slaten, "The Qualitative Use of N6;xo? in the Pauline Epistles" in AJT. 1919, pp. 213-217, and S\QN. pp. 3S-40. t If any reader approaches such a tabulation of usage with a presumption in favour of finding, in Paul at least, but one meaning of the word, rather than a variety of meanings, such presumption ought to be overthrown by an examination of the passages already disSee, e. g., Rom. 3^' 7 S'' ' \ in each of which Paul clearly sets law over against cussed.
law.
3'
in
NOMOS
those which follow.
455
But it is the second meaning that is the real startingwas, save point of N. T., and especially of Pauline, usage. To Paul 6 v6ti-o<; and the primary reference in exceptional cases, the revealed will of God, T. of the term was to the revelation of that will in O.
1.
(c/.
Find.
Nem.
vo^j-ou toO dvop6c;, "from 10.51; Ex. i2*Lev. 6^ etc.): Rom. 7*^, ixo tou iQi*. statute concerning marriage"; Rom. 7 Heb. 8" the general, or a body of statutes, 2. Divine law, the revealed will of God in head fall the ordinances, or instructions expressing that will. Under this purposes majority of all the N. T. instances of the word. But for the great necessary to recogof the interpreter, and for reasons indicated above, it is
above stated.
Divine law, expression of the divine will, viewed as a concrete fact, or characteristic feature. as a historic regime of which such expression is the The expression may be mandatory, or condemnatory, or approbatory, since In this use the term is colourwill may be expressed in any of these ways.
less
statutes,
other elements
principles and specific as concerns the distinction between general and as respects the qualification of the statutory system by any revelation as of divine revelation; it refers simply to divine
historic fact
it is
a concrete,
it.
the law of O. T., or more specifically, the Mosaic referred to, and this reference is indicated by the prefixing of code that is So in law. the article designating the well-iinown or previously mentioned
Most
frequently
Mt.
II":
rAyzzc,
ol
xpotp^xat
xal
yb\i.oq,
Icoq
'Iwdvvou
expo<?T)TSuaav.
23" Lk. 2". 24. 2^ 39 10" i6i Jn. i": h v6[jlo<; Sia Mwuaefoq klb%-q. 2^^- ^O' "'^ 719a. b. 23, 49 8 [5]. 1' Acts 6'" 7" IS* i8i 2I20. " " 22'. 23 Rom. ^ 9"- " lo^. When the reference to 319a. b 416 I Cor. 98' 8 14'^ Heb. "j"" ^^' Kupt'ou the article the 0. T. law is indicated by the addition of Mcouaiw? or See Lli. 2^3 {cf. Acts 13", which, however, probably is sometimes omitted.
125 223
''^''-
falls
under
(c);
Heb.
lo^^).
the law viewed simply as a concrete fact or historic regime is spoken exclusively in mind of qualitatively so that while the thing chiefly or even system but the O. T. law, yet it is thought of not specifically as the O. T.
When
is
simply in
is
its
8< io.*
assertions are
and Gal.
law. Or, asain, compare Rom. 6><. 7* and Gal. 2" 5' with Rom. S* which disclose a similar antithesis of statement concernmg law, which can different, if not even antibe resolved only by recognising that Paul uses the term i^oao; in
made about
s"'
"'
thetical, senses.
*
, tt 1. these and the previously cited examples from Heb. properly if "law viewed as a purely legalistic system," since the author evidently has characterises it as specially in mind the sacrificial and ritual elements of the law, and in 7" But since there is in this epistle no antithesis between difa law of carnal commandment. clearly marked in Paul, it is gratuitous to assign to ferent conceptions of law, such as is so the case of Paul; it the author of Heb. those specialised -meanings which are demanded in Epistle to the Hebrews to assign all these is truer to the point of view of the author of the of law viewed simply as a concrete historic resimc. instances to the category
, t
It
might seem as
(c),
belong under
456
v6[xo?, concrete,
GALATIANS
article. It is this sense of objective expression of the will of God, qualitatively thought of, that underlies both clauses of Rom. 2 '2; oaot yap dtvoixwq T^^jLaprov, ayo^iMq
xal dxoXoOvTat,
xal
bcoc
ev
\6\xbj
T^txapxov,
oid
vd^xou
xpi8T;aovTat.
It
is
law
possess.
It
is
in the
same sense of vo^jlo? that the Gentiles are described in v.i^ as xa ^i] v6[xov e'xovTa and v6[xov [xtj e%ovTq. This is also the most probable sense in b.* 2^ 23^ and in a"*, But the context of 2'- ^* in which of those who are described as voiJiov
(x-J)
e'xovTeq
it
is
immediately afiirmed,
v6(xo<;
kav-zolq
elah v6;xoq,
shows
clearly
Hence we
recognise a second
(b) Divine law in general, the will of God made known to men, but without reference to the manner of its expression, inclusive therefore of law as a historic regime, and of any other less objective forms of expression of
As
term
may
It would be easy to Judge that Rom. 5": axpi v6ixov, 5o: ro/xo? Trapeto-JjAOe./, should be classed here on the ground that these passages clearly refer to the law as a concrete historic fact. That they do refer to the concrete historic fact is undoubtedly true, but not to it simply as such. A careful study of the context makes it clear that the apostle is thinking
element and aspect of the system, from all other elements of divine revelation and set over against these other elements. These instances, therefore, belong not here but under (c). Similarly Gal. 3>7 might seem to demand classification under the historic sense. For while it is evident that in Gal., chap. 3, generally, it is the law legalistically interpreted that Paul is contending against, yet in s'' the expression "which came four hundred and thirty years afterwards" seems to give to the word " law " to which it is attached an unequivocally historical sense. Yet it is also to be recognised that in his assertion that the law does not annul the covenant it is the displacing of the covenant by the principle of legalism that he
legalistic
not of the whole institution of law, inclusive of whole simply as a historical fact, but only of the
all
of law isolated
So that while it may be said that what he affirms both in the parphrase and in the negative predicate ova aKvpol obviously applies to the law historically understood, yet it is his thought of the legalistic element or interpretation of the law
is
contending against.
ticipial
Thus
his full
some such fashion as this. "The law which came four hundred and thirty years afterwards, which you affirm established the principle of justification by law, and in which I do not deny such a principle may be found, does not annul the promise." It seems necessary, therefore, to assign all the instances in this chapter to this head.
It is noticeable that the use of foyaos in the concrete historic sense, frequent in other parts
N. T. is infrequent in Paul. It was a natural result of the controversies in which Paul was engaged and in connection with which he had chief occasion to use the term that when he spoke of the law or of law it was with some special aspect of the law in mind either that which his own thought emphasised or that which his opponents made prominent.
of the
t It is important to observe that this use of the term does not designate law without concrete historic expression, as the law of conscience or of the mind; concrete historic expression is not denied of the thing referred to, but is eliminated from the definition. The relation of
(a) and Cb) is illustrated, not by the by "black horse" and "horse."
NOMOS
article
457
and
in that case be qualitative
ot'xatoi
and be
definite, or
without the
00
article,
or indefinite:
Rom.
v6[jLou
2^^:
yap
o\
dxpoaxal
Cf. p.
v6[jlou
Kapa
[tw] Gecp,
iXX'
ol
xotTf]Tal
otxaco)0T)aovTat.
451.
The
qualitative force
term without the article can be expressed in English by trans"For not the law-hearers .... but the law-doers, etc." Here belongs also, as indicated above, Rom. 2"^; lauToTq hah y6[Loq. In 2 14b; ^^ T^oQ v6ixou xotouatv, it is impossible to tell with certainty whether
of the
lating:
ToO
votJLou means the concrete historic law (of the Jew), the requirements of which the Gentile meets, though ignorant of the fact that they are so required, or more generally the law of God, without reference to the form
of its presentation.
In xb epyov xou
it
votxou, v^^,
the latter
is
quite clearly
may
(a)
it is
the same in
v.^*^.
is
simply
with the elimination of the idea of coneasy to pass from the one sense to the
is
promulgation,
other,
and sometimes
the case in
difiicult to
employed.
This
is
Rom.
2"*>
^' 2.
Yet it is probable that in all these the apostle's mind the more generalised confall
under
(b).
The extreme of generalisation of the conception of represented in Rom. 3", Bia xoiou vo^jlou, and though in
question,
the law of
God
is
dXka
law
indicated
is
by
is
the word
ict'axeox;,
in
itself
wholly
colourless as respects
mode
of expression.
Rom.
The
by the
concept of the idea of concrete, historic expression, are alike in that both
ignore the distinction between general ethical principle and specific statutes.
of
From these we pass then to the two uses to which this latter idea is fundamental importance, and which are distinguished from one another The precisely in that one emphasises statutes and the other principle.
these reflects most strongly the influence of Pharisaic thought, of which Paul's defence of his own conception compelled him to take account. (c) Divine law viewed as a purely legalistic system made up of statutes on the basis of obedience or disobedience to which it justifies or condemns men as matter of debt without grace; the law detached in thought and distinguished from all other elements or aspects of divine revelation, whether it be the ethical principle that underlay it, or the covenant that preceded it
first of
and
qualified
it,
is
demanded by
word
The
the
which
458
GALATIANS
he was engaged. The possibility of its occurrence, as representing a reality and not merely an idea, lies in the fact that there are in the O. T. certain
passages which taken by themselves and strictly interpreted are expressive
of
pure legalism.
3"*:
The
legalistic interpretation of
such passages as Deut. 27", which he quotes in "Cursed is everyone who continueth not in all the things that are written in the book of the law to do them." He chose rather, admitting and even insisting upon the strictly legalistic meaning of these passages, to take, in effect, the position that such legalism was but one element of the revelation of the divine will, citing against it the Abrahamic covenant and the utterance of prophecy (Gal. 3") and the psalmist ( Gal. s^^^)
Gal.
(
Rom.
4ff ).
Used with the article (occasionally with other defining qualifications), the word in this sense refers to the legalistic element in the O. T., or to the O. T. or any part of it, looked at as Paul's opponents looked at it, as through and through legalistic. Without the article it is quaUtative, designating
law as such
legalistically understood, usually
That instances
of the
word
sometimes
is
difficult to
determine
assertions could be
cially is it
any case in part or in whole the same, and many of law in more than one sense of the word. Espethe case that the definite and the qualitative uses occur in close
in
made
connection.
tion
The
following
list
by
9.
examples of the
5
Rom.
io<.
'^
514,
16
y4,
5,
6,
7a, b,
12.
14.
16
"
82b.
^'*'
I
'
CoT.
^'
^''
Q^O". ^'
'^'
c
^''
155*
b
cS,
Gal.
*.
2''*' ^'
^'
3^
"'"*
^''
^^' 21a, b,
c.
23, 24
44,
5,
21a,
18
Eph. 2"
Phil. 35.
Tim.
i^.
Of
this list a
few examples
v6[jlo'j
will suf-
fice to illustrate
elalv.
3"': Saoc
yap e^ epywy
eblv
bizh xa-cdpav
Btxaiouxat xap(i
tw 6sw B^Xov.
yap
Rom.
v6[ji,ou
3^1
vuvl
eEq
10^: riXoq
Xptaxbg
But
his
y6[ioc,
is
is
for the
congenial to
own thought
is
Divine law conceived of as reduced to the ethical principle which constitutes its permanent element and essential demand, the perception
(d)
of
of authority
summed up
Conformity to
it
but even
this
is,
not
of obedience to
in a strict
and
of
an impulse and
N0M02
This use of the word
in the gospels
459
It is found also is by no means exclusively Pauline. and in Jas. When the reference is to the O. T. law looked at as embodying the great ethical principle, to which it is indeed reducible,
or to the law of
its
God
mode
of
expression, the
tively
article.
When
the law
is
qualita-
article.
This
v.(x\
Mt.
y^^:
q\
The
addition of
the
words
/.al
Tcpocp^rat
is
makes
it
evident that
it is
the law of
2 2'.
mind.
O. T. that
is
specially in
this
the
Mt.
5"'
Lk. I6l^
if
these words
Jesus, since
it
meaning in is beyond
many
v6'^oq
no longer
valid,
petual force.
Gal.
yap %aq
Xdyw
13 '
^
r.zTzkrtpixmxi,
Iv xjp
and Rom.
and
meaning
ence to
of the law.
its
In both cases
y"'^^b.
the law of
God with
expression in O. T. that
in
mind.
It
is difficult
certainty whether
Rom.
25a
Here
lo-
"
i"
4".*
to the law
By
metonymy due
by the Jews
of 0. T. 6 y6[ioq
when
they are thought of without special reference to the law which they contain,
Hence h y6[ioq [xal ol xpocpfiTa'.] becomes a Moses or for the scriptures in general without restriction either to the books of Moses or to the mandatory portions of other books: Lk. 24^^ Jn. i io'< 123^ 15" Acts 13'^ 24'^ 28'^ Rom. 3"^
but
simply as
scripture.
name
4.
is
By
meaning as
mean law
as
its
The
thing actually
spoken
in
of
may
be Jewish or
Roman
human.
It
may
or qualitatively or
power from within, begotten and maintained by the Spirit, by the indwelling Christ. But element of the apostle's thought does not strictly belong to his idea of law. Strictly That defined, law as here conceived is the will of God comprehended in a single principle. the principle is love, and that fulfilment of it is achieved by the indwelling Spirit rather than by "obedience" are both synthetic, not analytic judgments. * In Jas. 2"'' ", while mentioning specific commands, the author as clearly affirms the unity of the whole law and in v.' finds this unity in the principle of love. By his characterisation of the law in i'* 2^^ as a law of liberty he emphasises the principle that the law is not only centralised in one principle but even so must address itself not to the man from without but be operative from within, being written on the heart.
this
460
indefinitely without
I
it:
GALATIANS
Jn. 7"
8'' i8'i ig'*- ^
Acts
iB'^
yi*- ^ 7'^
Tim.
5.
I'.
By metonymy,
of a certain kind, has the effect of law, yU, i3a, c, 25b gia*
may
itself
XV.
Few words
AIKAI02, AIKAIOSTNH,
of the
AND
AIKAIOQ.
There remains little ground Yet on some points of great importance for the understanding of this epistle and the Pauline thought in general interpreters are not wholly agreed. It seems necessary, therefore, to undertake a fresh investigation of the whole subject.f
thoroughly discussed than those of this group.
for dispute concerning their
I.
CLASSICAL USAGE.
A.
it
fundamentally a forensic or court term in the sense that denotes conformity to a standard or norm (Sixtq) not conceived of as
Ai'Kaioq
is
defined in the
word
itself.
It differs thus
from iyaOos and xaXdq, which, own norm. Si'xtq being pri-
human conduct
norm
conduct of
are
is
nevertheless a
to which
men
bound
accordingly as applied
to men and their actions a moral term, and means, " conforming to that which is required, to what is right in relation to others." b Stxaio^ is the man whose action is according to Sixtj; he does what is right; he renders to
It
i/o/aou
connection and the similarity of phraseology refer back to be assigned here instead of to
is
i/o^o) aixapria'; in
2 (c);
fuller
or else 7" and with it 7='' "^' " be assigned to 2 (c). It phrase in S^b does refer to the shorter one in 7"; but a care-
ful
and " he
in
"),
for evil which in v." it stands opposed to the co/xo? with such a turn of words as the apostle delights in he substitutes for it
Speaking in 7"'
it
"
and designating
as a vojao? because
8*
its
companion
in bringing failure
and
ical
If,
as
is
OayaTov as designating the same thing spoken of in 7"'', then the change in the reference of i/d/io? will come in between vv.' and '; for tov vo/jiov in v. must evidently mean the law in the proper sense of the term, that which is spoken
possible,
we take lov
7.
Of the abundant
monographs and
articles
may be
cited: Kautzsch,
206-330; Morison, Critical Exposition of Ike Romans, pp. 163-207; Stevens, Wm. A., "On the Forensic Meaning of
Grdcitdt^', pp.
AJT.
The Righteousness
Meaning
of
God
in St.
Paul,"
God' in the Theology of St. Paul," in Hibberl Journal, 1902-3, pp. 83-95; Ropes, "Righteousness and 'the Righteousness ot God' in the O. T. and in St. Paul," in JBL. 1903, Pt. II, pp. 211-227;
in
Jas.,
JThSl. II 198-206;
Drummond,
"On
the
of 'Righteousness of
HDB.;
AIKAI02YNH
others their rights; he exacts also his own. either in the broad sense, "right" (Horn. Od.
4^1
The word is XVIII 413; Bacchyl.
thus employed
10
[11],
i>f- [1129 a'. ^]), or 123; Thuc. 3. 40'; Plato, Gorg. 507B; Aristot. Eth. Nic. 5. " (Hes. Op. 270/.; Hero(n)das 2": yvwi^H in the more specific sense, "just
Btxat'qc
Ttpt'aiv
BtatTaxe.
-rb
Dem.
right to claim,
the 12O, rendering to each what he has which is right (in general) " (Hdt.
" I" 7"'; ^sch.Prow. 187; Aristot.E^/i.iVzc. 5. 141129 a^]) or that which isdue from one man to another" (Thuc. 3.54^ Dem. 572^0, and this either as one's Greek duty, one's rights, or one's (penal) deserts. Though in the older
;
obligations to the
VI 120) to be St'xaioc included also the discharge of gods and xh Bixatov was conceived of as having the sanction of divine authority, yet especially in the later classical writers its predominant reference is to the mutual relations of men, and the conception of divine sanction
is
by no means constantly
ix.aiot
present.
Least of
all
are
or their conduct
and character
Si'xato? is fre-
human
conduct.
Though
quently used in a non-moral sense even here there is usually a reference to a standard outside the thing itself, or a demand requiring to be satisfied, fitting, suitable, as when the word means, "exact" (applied to numbers),
i.
Mem. The
4. 4';
character of the
Hdt.
(1366 b):
ipsx-?)
IC
y]v
wq
5.
6 vdjxoq,
Se
2.
St'
^v xd aXkoxgia,
o'jy,
wq
6 v6^o?.
But
cf.
Eth.
N.
i" (1129
b"ff
).
The
etc.:
used in two chief senses: i. To deem right, to think fit, 2. To do one justice, and i. i40>; Soph. Ph. 781. Cat. chiefly in tnalam partem, to condemn, to punish: Thuc. 3. 40*; Plut. Maj. 21^ Dion. Cass. 48. 46^ Polyb. 3.31'. Cremer (p. 319) in an approximately exhaustive examination of the usage of the word in classical and other non-biblical Greek writers found no instance of the use of the
C.
Atxai6a)
HEBREW USAGE OF
Stxaioc;
prs
AND
ITS COGNATES.
the root pix are (so far as
the
the evidence enables us to judge) fundamentally forensic in sense, expressing agreement with a standard or norm, not conceived of as defined in the
word
itself.
first
usage) the norm was conceived to be furnished by the objective standard of the object itself, or by the idea of God or of man (Kautzsch), or as seems 'more probable by the demand of the circumstances of a given case (Cremer) does', not materially affect the meaning of the word as used
Hebrew
in
O. T.
may be
classified as follows:
4^2
A.
1.
GALATIANS
P7.X signifies:
Conformity to an existing standard, which though conventionally established creates an obligation to conform to it: Lev. ig^s; Deut. 25",
etc.
2.
is
what
it
ought to
it
imately
so,
yi' Isa. i" 321 59*, etc. s'' Righteousness in relation to others, justice, the rendering to each of that which is due, either that which he has the right to claim, or that which he deserves; esp. justice in judging: Lev. 1915 Deut. ii* Job 31* Eccl. 5^
term is that a righteous God must distinguish in his dealings between the wicked man, who neither fears God nor deals justly with men, and the righteous man, who though he be not perfect but is indeed often confessedly a sinner, yet relatively speaking lives uprightly
and
trusts in
God.
The
righteousness of
is
God
the upright
losing sight of the basis of such salvation in the discriminating righteousness of God: Ps. 717 s5^*-^^ Isa. 411" 42" 458a. 13 515. with the same under-
is
spoken
of:
62^
2;
p-jx
into a
mere synonym
for salvation.
The
God
is still
B.
!5T.^,
n,"?"js
is
of
meaning as
usage,
2, is
sense.
The second
In Gen. is there is obvious reference to the requirement of God, and s signifies that conduct or attitude of mind which God desires, and which renders man acceptable to him. The forensic sense of the term is, therefore, especially clear here,
22^1, etc.
is
Sam.
throwing into the background the usual moral content of the term. Usage 3 illustrated in Jer. 2 23Ezek. 45'; usage4inPs. 36' () " ('") 5ii (*) Isa. 458''
5i'
561
Mic.
79.
is
For
its application to the saved see Isa. 4818 54'^ In the term used, with an apparent forgetfulness of the
Ropes, JBL. 1903, Pt. II, p. 219, holds that in Second Isaiah the ground of the vindication of Israel, by virtue of which the righteousness of God is salvation, is not in Israel's
character or suffering, but
his servant
lies
rather in
Jahweh
himself,
who
for his
own name
has redeemed
whom
This
Ropes
calls this
of the psalmists,
which
is
worshipper.
controls Paul, as
Rom., chaps,
it.
moral excellence and conscious piety of the it is not the view which show; Rom. S'" is apparently the nearest approximation
to an expression of
AIKAIOSYNH
4^3
acceptance by God conception of discriminating righteousness, to denote passages in and consequent deliverance (Ps. 69"). There are also a few in a given which it is apparently used of a just cause, a being in the right
case.
Cf
I.
Ki.
8' 2
Chr. 6".
C.
Deut.
4) signifies:
rather than moral sense, in the 1. With a formal and purely forensic 23 Prov. iS^' Isa. 41"right in a particular case or in an assertion: Ex. below. See sense can not always be sharply distinguished from 3
Yet
this
ly^'. ^s igs.
to be, Righteous, in moral conduct and character, what one ought and perfectly so: Ps. 145'' Eccl. 7^; or in a more general whetherab3olutely
3.
sense of those
who
and
life:
Prov. 2V-\
4.
In Deut. 4* it is applied to the law as inculcating righteousness. in punishing the wicked: Just, rendering to one what is due, especially
Ps.
^^'
"
('
Lam.
i'.
are, therefore,
Bt'xato?
much more
oixato(j6vY5, religious
terms.
They
are applied
this use is
earliest, it
has cer")
tainly profoundly affected the terms as applied to * 891" 96" Jer. ii' Ezr. g^^ Hos. 149 Zeph. 3^.
men.
See Ps.
righteous
7- i" ('
The
man owes
duties to
God
men: Ps. 18"-" Isa. si^- '; and the by divine authority: Gen. i8i
Deut.
161S-2'' Isa. It is a natural result of this difference ", etc. s^" Ps. iig^and which that the conception of justice, that which one owes to another is required that other can claim, as compared with righteousness, that which
Greek by morality or divine authority, is much less prominent than in the that to the use of Bt/.x'.o:; and its cognates. Indeed it is not entirely clear Hebrews the distinction existed at all. Justice is to them perhaps simply
judging. righteousness as manifested in particular relations, especially in p'-^-i preD. In p-i^ the legal and formal sense which appears in
moraldominates, though not, it would seem, to the entire exclusion of a forensic sense. Cf. Kautzsch, op. clt. pp. 15-17-
In the Kal conj. it means: one's assertion: Gen. 38" Job 1. To be in the right in a given case or in
gl5 3312.
2.
3.
prevail:
in the
Job 9^ ii^ 25^ 40' Ps. 143^ Isa. 43'' ". moral sense (this use Cremer denies):
Job 35^ Ps. 19^" (') The Niphal occurs in Dan. 8i< only, where it means, to be put to rights, to be made such as it should be. The Piel means, to declare or show one in the right (Job 32= 33"), to show
absolutely: Jer. 311 one, or cause one to appear, righteous, but relatively, not
Ezek. 16".
".
464
GALATIANS
In the Hiphil the meanings are: 1. To do one justice: 2 Sam. 15^ Ps. 82'. 2. To declare one to be in the right, to cause one to carry one's case, to give judgment for one; when used of one accused, it means to acquit: Ex. 237 Deut. 251 I Ki. 8'2 2 Chr. 6" Job. 27' Prov. 171^ Isa. 5=' 50*.
3.
To
it
While
give one standing, to cause one to be accepted: Isa. 53" Dan. 12=. can not perhaps be categorically denied that in these two passages
the Hiphil is a moral-causative term, meaning "to make righteous" (the Lxx read ixb twv Stxaftov xwv xoXXwv, which suggests a different Heb. txt.), yet in view of the prevailingly forensic sense of the term and the fact that
it is
no
sufficient
ground
44.
and otxac6to stand as the and |-n.x, and though other Hebrew words are occasionally rendered by Stxacoq, etc., and words of the pns group are sometimes rendered by other Greek words than Stxatoq,
regular
In
the
Lxx
representatives of
etc.,
the correspondence
Atxaioq.
is
A.
The
analysis given
there
above for pnx may stand for must be added as a meaning applied to things
(weights and measures), conforming to the accepted standard (cf. pn:^, i), and as a meaning of the neuter, generally used substantively (representing
PT)- '^?"f?, etc.)
which
is
Deut.
1620
Prov. i85
B.
292".
AcxatoffjvY].
I
The
analysis of
r^p^'i^
may
stand for
Sc/.atoauvYj,
the
it
usage
under
pi.x
to represent
which belong there. C. Atxatoo) is used to render pr^, the Piel and Hiphil of the latter corresponding to the active of the former, and the Kal to the passive (or to Bix.at6q el[u, or Sfxatoq cpa(vo[xxO. In all the examples cited under II D above, except Dan. 8^^ the Hebrew word is represented in the Lxx by
in the passages
some word
IV.
In the Apocryphal books StV.ato? is used as in the Lxx except that there are apparently no examples of the meanings, "in the right" (unless in Susan. 53), "innocent." The meaning, "righteous,"
A.
applied both to persons,
* On the noteworthy exceptions, cf. Ryle and James. The Psalms of Solomon, note on Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, pp. 4g /.
AIKAIOSYNH
Wisd. 2"
3' Sir.
4^5
God
in
io
Mac.
9'^;
judgment in 2 Mac. g^K The use " just," that which is right, one's rights, or one's of the neuter in the sense 13^-=' (penal) deserts is specially frequent; i Mac. 7^^ 11" 2 Mac. ii^*
Wisd. i2>S to
men
in
Tob. 14'
(?); to
Wisd.
i4'.
In Ps.
sinless,
Sol.
Sfxatoq
applied
to
men
who
in
who
but like the u^prs of the prophets those who observe the law of God, and trust in him as distinguished from the sinner: 2'^ 3*-" g* 15', etc. This is its use, also, in the Ethiopic Enoch so far as the Greek text is extant: The word is not used of God in ii. 2, 8 ioi7 22 2$* 273 (Giz) 10' (Syn). Enoch; in Ps.
Sol. it
is
applied to
God and
his
as righteously discriminating between the righteous and the sinner Messiah in a similar sense (i7'0cf. V.58; 51 8* g* io), and to the
"
^6;
B.
AtxatoCTuvT) in the
all
same
Lxx, except that there are no perfectly clear instances of the meaning, " justice." Possible instances are i Mac. 2" Wisd. g^ Sir. 452'. When used in the sense of (human) " right conduct" it is with an even clearer
word
in the
implication than
common in the canonical books that it is righteousness acceptable to God, and this righteousness is conceived 14'' of in a more external, legalistic way than in the prophets: Tob. 129 Wisd. 1 15. There are clear instances of the term applied to God to denote
is
which makes
men
between the righteous and the wicked wicked or in saving the righteous: Wisd. 51* i2i Sir. 16" Bar. i^^ 2' ''.* It is worthy of notice that in the book of Wisdom, also, and in i Mac. the term is used with such special emphasis upon the conception that righteousness {i. e. of men) is the basis
in punishing the
of acceptance with
alent of "acceptance with God," "condition of salvation": 2". Specially significant is Wisd. 15': xb yap I Mac.
b'Ko-iCkrjpoq
as
BtxatoffuvY),
xal
eiosvat aou
the author endeavours to sum content of righteousness, that which makes one acceptable to God and He differs from Tob. and from Gen. 1 5 in his concepsecures immortality.
tion of
what
cept
itself.
To
it is
God and
men
that
living, especially
faith; to the
knowledge of God.
to
God
is
BixatoajvY}
*
them that which makes men acceptable by virtue of that fact righteousness, Btuaioauvr^. In Ps. Sol. The is used in two senses corresponding to those of Sfxaioq.
But
to all of
In chaps.
4, 5 of
God"
is
spoken
of,
of Isa.
30
466
righteousness of
to
GALATIANS
men is their good conduct which makes them acceptable God and the objects of his salvation: i^ 5" g9 141. The righteousness of God is manifest in his discrimination between the righteous and the wicked,
all
and
Ps. 8
and
*^,
same nature
sponds to the
C.
is
i;^*. "
The usage
lo^'i*
of
Enoch
corre-
Atxa'.ow
used in Tob. In
Sir.
assigned, to belong."
means:
(i)
"to do
justice to,"
and
this
"to
It
10" 13".
and
"to be acquitted,
once
the
in the sense
to
be declared innocent":
(of
"to be accepted"
Sir. 91* 23" 26" 34 (31)"; God), apparently with the idea
negative side.
it is
Ps. Sol.
used exclusively
2^^ 33.
Bcxatow does not appear in the book of Enoch. In in the sense, " to recognise as just or right-
and
to
his
judgments:
right."
49 8'- ".
ai
93.
God XII
Dan.
3',
meaning, " to
justify,
deem
V.
SUMMARY OF PRE-CHRISTIAN
USAGE.
From
which
1.
this general
may
survey of Greek and Hebrew usage certain facts appear properly be summarised before taking up N. T. usage.
Both the Greek and Hebrew words, and all the terms of each group are in general, and in Jewish usage with increasing clearness, forensic terms, in the sense that they imply a comparison with some standard; the verb in particular in a large proportion of cases expressing a judgment concerning
such conformity, not signifying the bringing of a person or thing into
2.
it.
In Hebrew usage and the Greek usage of Semitic writers the terms are prevailingly moral as well as forensic; i. e., the standard is ethical, not merely conventional or
legal.
The
acts
is
esteemed
The
Materially defined,
consists in cer-
among
(a)
There
is
Among
AIKAI02YNH
4^7
In O. T. PTi sometimes denotes conformity to a standard primarily conIn many other ventional, and only secondarily fixed by divine authority.
cases the conception of a divine sanction, though probably not wholly absent, is thrown into the shade by emphasis upon the material content of
righteousness.
In other cases, however, in O. T. and later Jewish writings, g^ Deut. 6 24I' Ps. 71^ Wisd. 15' Tob. 13'
by God and
as con-
stituting the
is
In general,
it is
clear that in the latter part of the pre-Christian period, at least, the conis always included in that of righteousness, used in reference to men signifies either that conduct and character which satisfy God's requirement and make one acceptable to (b) In respect, also, to the him, or more abstractly, acceptance with him.
and
Stxa:oa6vTj
material content of righteousness conceptions vary. The Greek definition of the content of 5tx.atoa6vT) would differ greatly from the Hebrew, the
former,
e.
g.,
emphasising justice more than the latter. Among the Heis no little variation; sometimes the emphasis is laid on
sometimes on the
conduct towards men, sometimes on mercy and almsgiving, strict observance of rites and ceremonies, sometimes on a
towards God.
This variation simply
reflects
God and
accepta-
and by
different
men.
The Jews
righteousness to
was otherwise with the Greeks) prevailingly ascribed God, both in the general sense that he did what was right,
(it
and
towards
men and
did, in
with them, between the righteous and the wicked. Moreover, while freely recognising the sinfulness of "the righteous," they
in his dealing
fact this
is
many
of
the canonical Psalms, such as Ps. 65, 71, 85, and 143, and of Ps. Sol.
rely not alone
So
far
is
this
on the mercy of God for salvation, but on his righteousness. appeal to God's righteousness carried that in numerous pas-
In
"thy righteousness" apparently signifies, "acceptance with thee and consequent salvation by thee." This usage of the word does not appear in the latest pre-Christian books; but the conception of divine and human righteousness which underlies it is unmistakably present and strongly predominant.
5.
With
rare
oixacoto
and
is
r>l^
are
It
all
especially
Jewish-Greek xisage
purely, or
but purely, a
moral-forensic term (note the usage of the Apocr. and of Ps. Sol.), being
468
GALATIANS
used prevailingly In the sense " to recognise or declare as Sfxato? " either "to recognise as righteous" (Sir. iS^ Ps. Sol. u. s. IV C), or in the negative and restricted sense, " to acquit " (Sir. 23^* 26"), or in a more general sense, " to accept," with the implication of forgiveness (Sir. iS^^).
positively,
VI.
NEW TESTAMENT
is
USAGE.
clearly a moral-forensic term, meaning, in general, conforming to the true standard, meeting the ethical requirements
is placed. In the main it follows closely the usage of the Jewish writings, but as applied to men emphasises even more than O. T. the conception of divine requirement, fulfilment of which renders one acceptable to God, and as applied to God has even more exclusive ref-
A.
AUccioq in N. T.
Lxx and
erence to the righteousness of his dealings with men. Sol. Its uses may be classified as follows:
I. (a) Of persons: Upright, righteous in conduct or purpose, satisfying the ethical requirements of God and so acceptable to him. Usually cm'^ ployed qualitatively without reference to the degree of conformity to the standard, or denoting approximate conformity: Mt. 5^ 10" 1317. 43. 49 23^8. " 2537. 4a Lk. 16. 1^ 2" 14U 157 i8^ 20^0 23^0 Acts io^= 24'^
Rom.
5^
12" Jas. 516 i Pet. 3'^ 4I8 2 Pet. 2^ Rev. 22". In Mt. 9" Mk. 21' Lk. 532 Acts 3n 7" 22^^ Rom. s" Jas. 5^ i Pet 31* I Jn. 21 37b the righteousness referred to is evidently conceived of as per-' feet, fully satisfying the divine requirement. In Mt. 2335 2713 Lk. 23", the negative element, innocence, is emphasised. (b) Of action: Right, such as it ought to be, conforming to the moral requirement of God: Lk. 12" Acts 4" Eph. 61 Phil, i' 2 Pet. i". In Rom. 7" the commandment of God is spoken of as Scxatoq, i. e., requiring what is right. In i Jn. 2,'^ the works of Abel are said to be righteous, apparently emphasising their acceptableness to God.
I
Tim.
Heb.
lo'^
is a varying emphasis upon the forGod, neither the moral nor the forensic element being wholly absent, but the former predominating. In certain other passages the forensic element so clearly predominates that the term approximates or even reaches the sense, acceptable to God, yet always with the implication chat such acceptance rests upon some fact of moral significance. Rom. I" 21' 519 Gal. 3" Heb. ii* i Jn. 3'^
2.
Righteous, satisfying the requirements of a true ethical standard in Used in this sense especially of God, not, however, as rendering to each his deserts without mercy,* but as discriminating between righteous and wicked, and treating each in accordance with his
3.
character: Jn. 17" Rom. 3^' 2 Tim. 4^ i Jn. i^ Rev. 16^; with a like meaning used of God's judgments: 2 Thes. i=. Rev. 153 16' 192; of the judgment of
*It
is
in O. T. nor in
excluding mercy;
forbids treating a
man
AIKAIOSYNH
4^9
Christ: Jn. 5"; and of men, to the facts: Jn. 7"; of the action of men affecting others, it means, right, that which one ought to do in relation to others: Mt. 20^ Phil. 48 Col. 41.
it is
i.
e.,
what
But
there
is
more probable.
of Stxatocruvrj corresponds quite closely to that of hlxatoq, in general, the character or position of
B.
the
The usage
word denoting,
one who
is
Slxato?.
1.
Neither the moral nor the forensic element can be lost sight of. Conduct and character which satisfy the ethical requirements of God,
and so render one acceptable to him. As in the case of Bt'xatoq, so the noun also may be used simply qualitatively, or with reference to an approximate conformity, or of an ideal, perfect fulfilment of divine requirements: Mt. 315 58. 10. 20 61. " (?) 2152 Lk. I" Jn. i68' " Acts 10" 1310 24" Rom. 6"6" 16, 18. 19, 20 gio io5 1417 2 Cor. 6'' " 9'- 1" II" Eph. 4''* 5^ 6" Phil, i" i Tim. i^o 31" i Pet. 22" 3" 2 Pet. 28. ^i 2 Tim. 31" Tit. 3^ Heb. i' 51' 7^ 11" 12" Jas.
3^' " Rev. 22". Acceptance with God. With a stronger emphasis upon the forensic element, S'.x.atoa6vr] sometimes approaches or even reaches the sense, acceptance with God, or ground of acceptance with God. The question at issue between Paul and his opponents was in what way or on what ground 315 I
2.
Jn. 2"
m3n became acceptable to God, he maintaining that it was faith that rendered men acceptable to God, they that it was certain inheritances and deeds
comprehended under the term, " works
give
rise to
of law,"
or " law."
This discussion
such terms as "righteousness by faith," and "righteousness by law," in which just by reason of the fact that the question at issue was what made men acceptable to God, the term "righteousness" was necessarily without emphasis on this or that condition of acceptance. In another
direction, also, the
emphasis on the forensic element modified in some cases In Jewish thought acceptance with God involved
since,
one who has sinned provision respecting the sins of the past. And according to Paul, "all have sinned and are destitute of the divine
is
approval," forgiveness
explicitly, or
by
implication.
included in righteousness, either distinctly and Thus the present sense differs from the pre-
viz., in that the term itself lays less emphasis on the conduct and character which form the basis of acceptance with God, i^. m s. and that it more distinctly includes forgiveness. Rom. 4'- "
6.
10
Gal. 55
and
Phil. 3',
QoT 1' Gal. 2^1 3. 21 2 Tim. 4^ Jas. 2^^ Heb. II^ On which may with almost equal propriety be assigned to
.
These passages differ somewhat arn'ong themselves in the degree of the emphasis upon the forensic element and of the consequent subordination of th3 moral element, so much so, indeed, that they might even seem to fall
470
into two distinct classes.
riiq
GALATIANS
Thus,
in
Rom.
o\
4", in ffcppayfBa
Tfjq StxatoauvT]?
xt'aTso)?,
still
God through
faith,
>^a^
and
is
more
in the expression
ty]v
it
[x^q Swpeac;]
x^q
Stxatoauvir^c;
Xajx^divovTeq,
itself
On
{cf.
Rom.
4^:
-ziaxiq
auTou etq
Scxatocj'jvTjv
faith
being
spoken of
thought to include the conception of right conduct which makes one acceptable to God, not in the sense that
'rzia-ziq
itself
it
predicated of
ou Yd;p Sta
is
On
f)
may be
4^^:
v6[xotj
IxayyEXfa
dWa
ota BtxatoauvTjq
irtaTetog
most naturally taken as a genitive of description (appositional), and that xtaTewq means righteousness which consists in faith; and it may be further contended that this is also the meaning of StxatoauvT) in
StxatoauvTQ
VV.5.
5,
6,
12^
different
from what
really
is
but a recognition of
it
as being, in fact, of
God which God and which therefore renders men acceptable to God. In this case, also, we should have a sense of the word BtxatoauvT} in which the moral element would be distinctly present, but the relation between faith and righteousness would be not that of an equivalence for purposes of justification, created by divine fiat, but (qualitative) moral identity. But it is probable that both these views over-emphasise the distinction of meaning among the passages cited above. The conception of value imputed conthe quality of righteousness, the moral attitude towards
desires
trary to fact
xtvt,
is
elq
or XofiaQrivai
which simply express the idea that a certain thing is valued at a certain value, or credited to a person, without implication that such valuation or crediting is otherwise than according to the facts. See note on chap. 3'.
Nor
is
teaching of
acceptance of
not on a
Rom. 4'-'. For while this passage expressly affirms that God's Abraham was not on grounds of merit, b^dXr][i.(x, that is, commercial, bookkeeping basis, by which God demanded and
Abraham rendered a quantitatively complete satisfaction of the divine claims, yet it by no means follows that in evaluating Abraham's faith at It meets the righteousness, God reckoned it as something else than it was.
requirements of the passage and
2i-i,
it
ous insistence upon the conformity of God's judgments with reality (Rom.
esp. vv.'is
8)
which underlies
desires
his
language
here
that faith
really acceptable to
towards
God which he
men
to sustain.
AIKAIOSYNH
Yet
47
probable, that in these verses it does not follow, nor is it on the whole on Paul means by the word Bt/.acoa6vn right conduct, with the emphasis The atmosphere of the whole passage is so distinctly the moral element.
forensic that
StxaiotjuviQ itself is emit is better to suppose that the word " with ployed in a predominantly forensic sense, meaning, basis of acceptance God," and that while there is no implication that the accounting of faith as
direct righteousness involved an element of fiction, yet neither is there any God gave reference to the moral quality of faith.* It is the value which
to
faith that
that faith of which the apostle is speaking; what it was in warranted such a valuation is not here the prominent thought. as is In Phil, 3' SixaioauvT] yj Iv voixw, ex. \>6[io\j is such righteousness It is, in fact, attainable in the sphere of law, and from (obedience to) law. no true righteousas the context implies, so insufficient as to be worthless,
Abraham's
ness at
all.
sage that
it is difficult
preceding.
The
v.,
forensic elements are so conjoined in this pasto assign the instances decisively to this head or the moralor at least the active element seems to prev..
dominate in
In Gal.
s'
eXxBa and
dTrexSexoiAeea
show that
of the believer of Sixaioauv-nq does not refer to that divine acceptance still which Paul usually speaks in using the verb otxatow, but to something On the other hand, the use of Si%aioua0e in v." indicates to be obtained. emphasis, but that the term is not employed with an exclusively ethical present.^ These that, on the contrary, the forensic element is distinctly
term as having reference to that future justificawhich Paul speaks in Rom. 2''. i". Yet inasmuch as such future qualitatively justification is itself based not on faith, even conceived of as
tion of
on the achieved character of the justified person, exclusive emphasis on the forensic element is improbable. The righteousness which forensic element distinctly but not is hoped for is ethical-forensic, with the
righteous, but
by the very
fact that
it is
hoped
T-f)v
for, still in
the
x(aTS(.)<;
Probably altogether similar is the meaning XptJToO and t-?]v ex eeou Stx.atoajvY)v licl
of
Tf}
[SixatocuviQv]
StA
i".
These phrases also refer to the future and the context emphasises both to exclude ethical and forensic elements in such way as to make it impossible which the either from these phrases or to determine with certainty on emphasis lies. Concerning Rom. i^^ 3"' " 1% which are closely related to the passages already considered, but yet constitute a group by themselves,
see 4 below.
3.
Out
of the
(i,
who
believes there
is
involved forgiveness of
though it confirms the judgment that the apostle's thought is moving only incidental, on the forensic plane, is, as compared with the idea of positive acceptance, not the key to the central point of view of the passage.
past sins.
But
this,
472
through
its
GALATIANS
more
specific sense-
use in reference to relations to others, the righteousness in dealing with others in accordance
character. The term is In Acts 7" Rev. 19", the discrimination between the righteous and the wicked, issuing in the punishment of the latter
with their conduct and used in this sense exclusively of God (and Christ).
former
is
in
mind
the
{cf.
also
Rom. 2^
Stxacoxpcafa,
necessity that the righteous God shall manifest his disapproval of sin is emphasised. In 2 Pet. i^ Scxatoa6vY3 toG GsoCi denot^" the impartial righteousness of God manifested
in the salvation of Gentile?
Rom.
3^. ". 26
as well as of Jews.
4.
Inasmuch
vided by
faith),
Stxatoauvrj
God
as the way of acceptance with God is prescribed and pro. (being bestowed not on grounds of merit but on condition of
the genitive
may be called God's righteousness, denoting source: Rom. H' 321. " lo'. This
and
Ps. (see exx
usage
is
most
under II
4, also
pressed, differs
under IV, B). But the thought of Paul, so far as exin two respects from that of his predecessors, the
prophets
(a)
While the prophet finds in the righteousness of God which discriminates between the righteous and the wicked, the basis of salvation for the righteous, and so associates the two that the same term seems at times to express both, or at least to express one with a distinct implication of its basis in the other, Paul rarely so conjoins the divine discriminating righteousness with
pressed in N. T. in
i
and psalmists,
human
2
salvation.
i^.
Jn. i;
cf.
Thes.
Rom. 2^
behind not by denying but simply by ignoring it; to him the divine righteousness is brought under suspicion not so much by failure to save as by a neglect to punish sin (see Rom. 3". 2 and 3 above), (b) The salvation of men is with Paul grounded in the grace of God. Though
affirming that
God
will
(Rom.
2"-i;
cj.
Gal. 5^
and discussion
find their occasion! or the occarion of their expression, in two related facts: (i) He was opposing the Pharisaic legalism which, being a distortion and corruption of the prophetic doctrine that the righteous God accepts and approves righteous
God's fundamental requirement (see B. 2 above, p. 469), he yet clearly maintains that justification is the gracious acceptance of sinners on the ground of faith. These two peculiarities of the Pauline thought which are evidently but the opposite sides of one fact,
Itself satisfying
men, could only be met by an emphasis upon the divine grace in salvation which threw quite into the background the conception of the divine righteousness as the basis of salvation. Even when the apostle adopts for a the prophetic point of view, emphasising the discriminating righteousness of God (Rom., chap. 2) it is for the sake of insisting that this righteousness will bring about the punishment of impenitent Israel. (2) Closely connected with this is the fact that the apostle held a stricter and
moment
AIKAI02YNH
473
more consistent, though less legalistic, view of sin than did those Pharisees and Pharisaic Christians whose views he was opposing. While recognising with the prophets the discrimination of men into two classes, the righteous and the wicked, and maintaining that God approves and accepts the former, he yet maintained, also, that there were none who, being perfectly righteous, could be accepted on grounds of personal merit. The righteousness of God, therefore, in its purely forensic aspect and apart from grace, could not of
itself
While, therefore,
it is
in
Rom.
i^^ etc.,
is
God
position
by the general position of Paul concerning the relation of divine righteousand human salvation, or by the history of the usage of the word in the period between Isaiah and Paul. C. Atxatow in N. T. signifies, to recognise, declare, accept as Sc'xaio;;. It is a moral-forensic term, and this not only in that this is the force of Btxatoq as taken up into the verb, but, also, in that the verb itself (like dc^ioo) and ojtow), is declarative rather than strictly causative. Its various
or ness
senses are as follows:
1.
To
(a)
Cor.
4*.
tion or acceptance involving no element of grace or pardon: Mt. iV^ Lk. 7"- " 1615 Rom. 3^ i Tim. 31".
2.
With a
greater emphasis
upon the
meaning
of
S{x,ato?
(to
As
in the
ance
is
itself
and
in
many
passages
is
under discussion.
Stxatoq
is still
Rom.
6'',
from the purely legal realm. We may recognise six sub-classes of passages in which the word occurs with the sense above indicated: (a) Those in which a positive ground of acceptance is spoken of and this ground is certain deeds or conduct, there being no
where Paul draws an
implication that the justification spoken of involves pardon for sin or grace:
2^'
Jas.
2='-
".
is
25,
(b)
Those
this
ground
either faith or
declared to be inadequate.
In these passages there is no reference to pardon as an element of justification, and the justification is indicated to be an act of grace only by the implication conveyed in Ix xt'jTswq, ojx e^ Ipywv v6[iou, etc. The explicit mention of positive ground of justification in the passages which deny the possibility of justification on the grounds
474
named, Ipya
v6[jlou,
GALATIANS
shows that the term
is
simply, to pardon:
Rom.
3".
28.
30
42 ^i Gal. 2^''
3*.
"
"
5*.
(c)
Those
in
used with no limitation save that of a direct object; the force of the word is apparently the same as in the passages under (b): Rom. 32" 8'o. ". (d) In Rom. 3=* 4^ 5^ i Cor. 6" Tit. 3' there is a distinct
is
recognition that the acceptance referred to involves an element of pardon and grace; those who are accepted not being in personal character Sfxaioq, but aStxoi; and ux68ixo<;. It should be observed, however, that in some
of the passages
under
no sharp
line of discrimination
itself
only a little more remotely implied, that can be drawn between the two classes, and retains in both cases the same meaning, (e) In Rom. 6^
(b) this is
the context
unrighteousness of the person is presumed, but there is no element of grace or pardon, the release being based on the suflfering of the penalty. Though this instance is quite excepit
show how broad is the meaning of the word. In itself contains no assertion concerning the character of the person, and no implication of pardon. These are conveyed, when conveyed at all, by the
tional, it serves to
(f)
context,
iS'''
Acts
is'^,
word the
meaning, to pardon.* These are instances of a semi-metonymy, by which the term which denotes the whole of the act is used with chief or exclusive
reference to a part of it which is involved in every ordinary case of the whole as applied to wrong-doers. The reduction of Paul's term, 8txat6w,
to a purely negative sense,
evidence.
epistles,
"to pardon," is definitely excluded by the Over against these two passages, neither of them in Paul's and neither of them quite certainly referring exclusively to pardon,
there
is
is mentioned and its adequacy denied. See under For the context makes it clear that works of law are thought of as inadequate not to secure the forgiveness of admitted sinners, but to win approval on ground of merit, which would leave no occasion for forgiveness. The argument of Rom. 1I8-320, as of Gal. s^'>^- is to the effect, not
above.
that
men who
fail of
forgiveness for
meet God's requirements, and being held responsible for that failure, they are in need of forgiveness, and must be accepted, if at all, on grounds of grace. Forgiveness is an element of the justification which men obtain through faith, by grace; but is not included in the justification which they (vainly) seek by works of law. It can not therefore exhaust the meaning of the term.
*
To
Rom. 4': rov SiKaLovfTa rof aae^ri, wer-!; it not for the wivri^ avrov ei? SiKaLoarvvtjv, which evidently involves a positive
msTis
XVI.
I.
475
A.
latter the
The active sense: faith, confidence, trust. As exercised towards another: Soph. 0. C. 950; Plato, Phaed. 275A. (b) As enjoyed by one, exercised towards him by others; hence credit, Dem. 962^; Polyb. 8. 21'; Plut. trust in the commercial or legal sense:
(a)
Cic. 41':
xal
T-?]v
o'jat'av
a'Jxf,q
h Ktx.Hp(i)v ev xiaret
/.XiQpovdttoi; dcxo^vSt^Oelq
BcscpuXaTTSV.
(c)
distinguished from
IxtJTTjiXT),
knowledge, in
iziaxiq
that the latter implies the actuality of the thing believed, while
affirms only subjective certainty
S6^3c,
in Aristotle
from
opinion {Anim.
3. 3^
[428
a^"],
which, however,
it is
said to follow;
for
though Soqa
may
be true or
false, it is
and power
and con-
XII 966 D.
(b): that
By metonymy,
5.
in one: Polyb.
2.
41^
trustworthiness,
faithfulness,
The
passive sense:
it.
or
the pledge or
assurance of
(a)
Personal
fidelity, faithfulness:
i.
Hdt.
faith,
8^"^;
Xen. An.
i. 6';
Aristot.
Mor.
3^*
Magn.
(b)
433.
assurance of fidelity:
Hdt.
Thuc.
(c)
Xen. Cyr.
7.
i".
Token
of a compact, guarantee:
(290).
(d)
or in argument:
Aristot. Rhet.
B.
riiaTeuw,
found
in
is
used in a
(a)
in, to rely
things;
in
the dat.:
Thuc.
(b)
s. 1122.
word or statement.
is
The name
the
noun denoting
his word,
in the dat.,
476
Plato, Phaed. 88C;
inf.
GALATIANS
^sch. Pers. 800; Eur. Hel.
710.
Followed also by an
putting confidence in one are in experience closely related, a sharp discrimination can not always be
2.
made between
(a)
and
4,
(b).
To
committed and
dat.
of the person to
whom
it is
entrusted: Xen.
Mem.
4*^
II.
HEBREW USAGE OF
The primary
lasting, enduring.
aND
^^^..
A.
njiDN in O. T.
sense
of
the root
pN
is,
appar-
ently, to
be firm,
of the noun.
1.
Steadiness, stability.
(a)
(b)
Of physical things, steadiness, firmness. Ex. i'j^'\ Of institutions, stability: Isa, 33': "And there shall be
In a moral sense, steadfastness, faithfulness. In judgment or statement,
fidelity to the facts, or in
stability in
thy times."
2.
(a)
conduct, to one's
m judgment:
"For the word of the Lord is right, and all his work is done in faithfulness"; Prov. 12": "Lying lips are an abomination 10 the Lord, but they that deal truly (with faithfulness) are his delight"; Hos. 2": "I will even
betroth thee unto
36' 40"
me
"And
righteousness shall be
the girdle of his loins and faithfulness the girdle of his reins."
Ps.
(10)
See also
8812 (")
". ".
89
2 0)'
'
0)'
so.
7=8 92
Lam. 3".
hon-
"Moreover they reckoned not with the men whose hands they delivered the money to give to them that did the
Ki. 1215:
See also
Sam. 26"
In a more
"But
3.
by
his faithfulness."
an office: i Chr. 9". " " 2 Chr. 31". ". and nw (the latter much more frequent in O. T. than the former) have substantially the same range of meanings as -ijidn, except that neither of them seems to have been used in a physical sense. |iaN (Deut. 32" Isa. 26' Prov. is^'', etc.) is rendered by Tziaziq in the Lxx in Deut. 32"' only. ncN is translated by xfaxtq in Prov. 3' 14"
B.
tiDX
15"
C.
1. 2.
40
(33)'.
it is
rendered by
which
is
fpNT
in O. T.
still,
To To
stand
to be steady:
making a statement.
else
(a) Proprie,
than
this;
Ki.
msTis
10^:
it."
477
"I believed not the words, until I came, and mine eyes had seen See also Gen. 45= 2 Chr. 9 Prov. 14" Job g'^ 15" 29"* Jer. i2 40"
42.
Lam.
(b)
To
making a statement,
or,
with
speaks or to
corresponding thereto, especially a corresponding trust in the person who whom the fact or statement pertains; usually with S, but occasionally with 2: Gen. 15':
"And he beheved
See also Ex.
531 Jer. i2.
(in?)
. .
it
to
him
for righteousness."
2*
4^-
Hab.
1= Isa. 7
With a personal
2.
object, or
no
(a)
specific reference to
usually with
Proprie: Deut.
1^^:
"In
this thing
31
Yahweh
your God."
(b)
41' 1515.
3912
is
Mic.
Judg.
ii='.
With
Yahweh,
his
"And
Yahweh
Yahweh, and in his servant Moses." See also Ex. i9 Used with reference to God the emphasis is sometimes clearly upon the element of trust, confidence, reliance: Nu. 14" Some of these, perhaps, belong under Ps. 27" 78" 11610 Isa. 2816 Dan. 6-^ In other cases the emphasis is almost as clearly on the recognition of (a). authority and character, which calls for obedience: Nu. 20" Deut. 9" 2 Ki.
and they believed
in
To have
A.
the
ITicTTtq
represents
the phases of
its
meaning except
to
first,
"steadiness," "stability."
e.
Though
other words,
g.,
fios, the
analysis of
i,
meanings of the
%iaxtq.
latter
word may,
in
the
Lxx
of V^^J^
the
latter
is
rendered by
Itixtarsuo) in
Chr.
20";
Prov. 26".
by xaxaxtaTsuca in Mic. 7^, and by the passive of TcefOw in The meanings of xtaxsua) are the same as those of the Hebrew
still.
For
though the
the Greek
xiffxeOd) in
Lxx have
xtaTsuw, in
Job
sg"^*
it is is
sense.
The
a dat. of the person or thing believed or trusted See Gen. i5 45" (representing both h and a after the Hebrew verb). Ex. 41 Jn. 3", etc. Other constructions, such as Iv with the dat. (Ps. 77
is
Lxx
"
47^
(78)" Jer, i2 Dan.
6^'), Z-zt
GALATIANS
with a clause (Job
9> is'O,
and the
infinitive
IV.
A.
The usage
of the
noun
in these
Sir.
15"
In the passive sense: faithfulness, truthfulness, sincerity: Wisd. 4012 41I6 4615 I Mac. 10". s? 1435 ^ Mac. 3', In 4 Mac. is=< 16"
is
17'
the passive meaning seems more probable, though the active sense
cases possible.
2.
in all
faith, confidence.
i" (")
4910,
credit: Sir.
22"
37".
310; cf. Jos. A7tt. 20.
62
(32),
B.
1.
UiaTeuw means:
To
making a statement.
(a) Proprie,
I
Esd.
4='8
without clear implication that anything else is involved: Tob. 2" s' (0 10" 0) 14* (0 bis Sir. igi" Dan. Susan. 41 i
Mac.
(b)
io^.
To
Mac.
2.
I'o
(A).
To
trust, to
put confidence
(pass.)
in.
(a)
Sir. 2'
^-
" 11"
1210
(8)
To put
confidence in
(ex{
(dat.)
3.
Wisd. 12'
with ace).
35
(32)21.
4.
To
entrust (dat.
14^ i
Mac.
S^' 2
Mac.
3".
V.
NEW TESTAMENT
The words
USAGE.
of
Ulaziq and xtaTeuw, as used in N. T., clearly show the influence alike of
Hebrew thought
which they
became the
mainly
vehicle.
Yet
and writings of the Hebrew prophets and psalmists. important respects the usage of the N. T. has moved away from that of both lines of its ancestry.
in the experience in
in sense,
Tziaxiq in
the
Lxx and
Apocr.
is
active, in
N. T.
Again, while in the Greek writers the terms are prevailingly intellectual
or ethical,
i. e.,
msTis
in a sphere other
this the
479
than that of
religion,
Hebrew) prevailingly
ethical, in
IIiaTeua)
signifi-
(b),
under
II
i.
is
very
rare.
See below,
-Klaxiq,
While always including or involving acceptance of truth, that which is called Tciaziq in N. T. carries with it also the volitional action which such acceptance calls for. See Mt. g'-s- " Mk. ii22-2< Rom. lo'ff- 2 Thes. 2"
Heb. ii Jn. 20". It is true that in certain instances such as Heb. iii- the emphasis is so laid upon the apprehension and acceptance of truth rather than upon the corresponding volitional action, as to seem to imply
that volitional action (except as involved in the will to believe)
strictly
is
not
from the remainder of the chapter that the writer intends to apply the term %iaxiq only to a belief which exerts a determinative influence on conduct. If, therefore,
speaking included in
faith.
it is
But
clear
volitional action
is
it is
involved in
the act
itself.
In Jas.
is
used of a purely
But
faith
is futile,
usage of another whose views he does not hold, and whose usage of words
is
different
from
his
own
usual
employment
of
them.
TP^ili?)
Once
xta-ceuG),
again,
while
in
the
Lxx
(representing
and
Apocr.,
followed
is
by words
referring to
God
ing God,
while this use of the word furnishes the principal basis or point of attach-
ment for the development of N. T. usage, it becomes much more frequent and important in N. T. than in O. T. In short, both xfaxi? and xtaxeuo)
are in N. T. prevailingly religious rather than intellectual or ethical terms,
xfaxtc; is
These
while
its
facts are to
upon the
elements or aspects of
The prominence
noun.
A.
I.
ritaTeuto
To
ment.
The
thing believed
is
by an
accusative, or
by a
clause
480
introduced by
the
is
GALATIANS
8Tt;
once by an
24**);
infinitive
once by
eiq
with subject accusative (Acts is'O; with the accusative (i Jn. 5^"'=);
or the impersonal thing which
'^
name
of the person
i^^ n^;,
is
sometimes used
Jn. gi*
i
indicates
what
intended.
life:
The
may
Cor.
t(T)
II";
false:
Thes. 2":
elq zh xtaTsuaai
auzobq
(b)
may be
may
even
This
is
Sat[j.6vta
ictaTsuouaiv
xal cppbaouaiv.
") Jn.
amples are: Mt. 242". " Mk. 13" (1613. 26" Rom. 6 137 I Thes. 4^* i Jn. 41.
(c)
2"
312
But
pertaining to
God
is
God
or Christ, or
some
one bringing the divine message; and it is more or less clearly implied that the belief itself is accompanied by the conduct corresponding thereto, especially by a corresponding trust in the person who is believed, or to whom
the statement pertains:
it:i[t.<l)cxyzi
Jn.
5"^*:
[le
e'xet
i;a)-f)v
atwviov.
Mk.
*'
18
i'* (Iv)
*'
-J6
g23, 24 Ji23, 24
ir32 L]^_
j 46 ^li, 13, 50
46, 47
530, 19
21
8" lO"'
II^^' ^^^'
Jtt.
''
"
16*7. 2
SO. SI
178.
29. SI
Acts
4*
8" 13" 24" 27" Rom. 45. 10b, i Jn. 3" 51. 5.
18
io9.
Cor. 4"
2. To trust, to put confidence in, to commit one's self to; usually with the added idea of recognition of the character or standing of the one trusted and allegiance to him. The object, which is always a word referring to even here implied, not expressed i4iActs 16" Christ (except in Jn. 12"" Rom. 4" 9") is most commonly introduced by the preposition dq, but sometimes by Ixf with dat. or ace, and is in a few cases expressed by a sim-
ple dative.
The verb
Tim.
is
ii''
in this sense
is
not infrequently used absolutely, the In Jn. 14* Rom. 9" 10"
is
Pet. 2 2
Tit. 3*
Heb.
4',
probably prominent,
elq
i
in the foreground:
Gal.
^[lelq
Xptarbv
'IirjaoGv
excaxeuaaixsv.
8, 40
Mt.
i8
2".
" 3".
(bis)
" 4"
6-
ji,
31,
38, 39, 48
g24, 30, 31
jo*2 ijSS,
34
2a, 45, 48
I2ll> '*
Rom. lo^
Phil, i-'
Tim.
ii 3i I
Pet. i*
Jn.
The
under
1
is
found
Rom.
i8''
(dat.) Jn.
6" 9"
Pet. 2
31* (abso-
1112X12
lutely),
48i
rarity of the construction
9^2
first
Acts io 14"
19^), its
Lxx
usage in the Johannine writings, suggest the probability that it first came into literary use in the Christian (perhaps Pauline) circles of the
apostolic age, as being
aspect of
acceptance and adherence, than any previously current phraseology. It may have been previously used colloquially, or have been coined colloquially
in Christian circles.
3.
sis
It is
Jn.
51*"=
only.
To have
faith, referring to
upon any
39,
special aspect of
See also
27
14I 1-5,
iyl2.
11
34
igSb,
Rom. i^^: ouvaixiq -^dcp OsoO Mk. 9^2 Acts 2" 4'^ 5" ig2. 13 2l20, 25 Rom. 3^2 4" lO^. 10
ii^. 19 i
ia-zh elq
(?)
I3II
ii^i
I5"
Cor.
4.
35 1422 152.
Gal.
3" Eph.
Thes.
i^ 2".
13
Pet. 2^ Jude^.
xi:vTa.
To have confidence, to be bold: Rom. 14^: oq [jlsv xtareuei cpayelv The basis of this confidence is indicated by v.i to be Christian faith;
power
yet the verb here apparently means simply, to have confidence, the allusion to -Kiaxiq in the Christian sense lying not in the verb, but in its
to recall the xc'axtq of
5. v.i.
To
2":
entrust (followed
a-iTo:;
by
ace.
and
by ace):
Lk. 16"
Jn.
See
also
Rom.
B.
I.
32 I Cor.
9"
Gal.
2' i
Thes.
2* 1
Tim. i^
Tit.
i'.
The
tions.
1.
men
2.
God Rom.
II.
1.
The
such: Jas.
2.
BeUef of the truth concerning, and corresponding trust in, a person including or involving the attitude of vAll and conduct which such belief
calls for, especially the
committal of one's
self to
is
him
to
whom
the truth
ex-
pertains.
plicitly or
(a)
The
in
N. T. almost always
by implication God or Christ; rarely the truth or a truth. Apprehension and acceptance of the truth concerning God or Christ
this intellectual element:
Heb.
11':
xfaxet voou^sv
Cf. v.i.
Belief in the
of
God, as revealed
in the pre-
Christian period, to bless, help, and save, and a corresponding trust and
31
482
GALATIANS
Abraham: Rom.
Heb.
42
is
4'5,
"
7
i'-
i'-
"
" Heb.
ii*-
17;
n^.
(j^^) n. u. 2o-3d_
(c)
the faith in
in the
tzigziv
iS^;
spoken of in
Jas.
6.
him
matter in
V.2*:
2^
xfaxiv
ij^tov
YevT)9T]T0>
Cf.
xiaxsusTS oxt
53^ lo^^
touto
<
xoifiaoci;
see also
Mt.
Si" g*.
"
1528
Mk.
4"
Lk.
s^ 7'-
8"-
171'
i8^^
is
name
The acceptance
Such
of the gospel
self for
salvation to
him or
to
God
as revealed in
him.
faith is often
spoken
lation
of the gospel
in the
context.
The
number
of cases
which
fall
under
is
into several classes, differing, however, only in the greater or less clearness
expressed, or in the
empha-
upon one or another phase of it. (i) Those in which the object of the
and the
faith
is
distinctly expressed
article is
The
Tifjv
xbxtv
i^
xuptov
24=^
is
i^ 2^-
Thes.
i' Jas. 2^
Rev. 2"
force:
1412.
Sometimes
3".
^e
it
Rom.
Heb.
61
without the
with
article,
iziaxiq,
preceded by an
article agreeing
"a
faith
(ii)
So in Gal.
Tziaiiq is
2^" Acts 2618 i Tim. 31' 2 Tim. i" 3". accompanied by a subjective genitive or
by whom the faith is exercised. The article The object of the faith is usually indicated, more or less definitely, by the context, but occasionally directly expressed, such cases falling at the same time under the preceding head: Lk. 2232 Rom. i8- 12 I Cor. 2' i^''' '' 2 Cor. i^^^ lo's Phil. 2I' Col. i* 2 10 I Thes. i 3-2 Thes. i* 2 Tim. 2'^ Phm. 5. 6 jjeb. 13' Jas. i I Pet. !' " 2 Pet. i5 I Jn. 5< Jude - Rev. 2I' 1310. Without the article:
equivalent phrase indicating
is
5.
7.
Tit. iK
msTis
(iii)
483
neither objective nor subjective
is
Those
in which,
though there
is
clearly implied
The
article
of, as in
Rom.
3'"^ 2 Cor.
that referred to in the accompanying phrase, as in Gal. i", or, most frequently, as the well-known (Christian) faith, as in Gal.
610.
For other
uxiqx,ouov
article, see
Acts 6'
(izo'kuq xs
xfoxet)
eric
Acts 138 14" i5 165 Rom. 3" io- ^^ (the article is possibly genin this case) ii^o i Cor. 16" 2 Cor. 4*' 13^ Gal. i" 3"- ^s. 25 Eph. 31^ 4"
6"
610.
Phil. !
12,
" Col.
i2
2^
10
Thes.
47 Tit.
i'
Thes.
32 i
Tim. 1"^
3' 41.
'.
5*.
12
21
Tim.
45.*
i5 218 38,
i^' 2^
is
Heb.
Jude
Cf.
also
Eph.
24
When
the article
force, as in
8.
9,
55, 6
Acts 11" 14" Rom. i*. i' (ter) 51 q'"- " io 1626 ph. 28 6" I Thes. 58 2 Thes. i" i Tim. i". *
3'
412 511
Tim. 2"
(iv)
Tit. i* 21 s''
Heb.
Those which
willingness of
definitely
(v)
God
to
and qualitatively: Rom. 12'- i Cor. i2 i^^- ". Those which speak of Christian faith with special reference to the element of reliance upon God for acceptance with him apart from works of law and merit, and its consequent power to free one from the scruples of legaUsm or asceticism; used both definitely and qualitatively: Rom. 14^- " " (bis) I Tim. 4 (?). (f) Faith without reference to the distinction between faith in God as revealed in the O. T. period and faith as the acceptance of the gospel message; the term thus signifies faith as the attitude towards God of the man who accepts and believes whatever accredits itself to him as from God, and commits himself in trustfulness and obedience to God, whether towards
God
*
as
known
In the nature
tianity
itself,
of the Christian
its
of (active) faith. See i Tim. Out of this usage there undoubtedly grew in time the use of jtiVtis to denote Christianity and in particular the beliefs of Christianity. But it is doubtful whether this stage of development is reached in N. T. Gal. i 2 Tim. 4^ sometimes regarded as examples of this usage, are certainly not such, and are not even to be iriaTi? in these two passages has its proper and usual N. T. classed with those cited above.
"
Tim. 38
Tit.
i"
2'
Jude
These anarthrous cases form a transition from those in which the reference is distinctly and faith in Christ, or in God as revealed in Christ, to those in which f. below) faith is spoken of without reference to the extent of the revelation and without distinction between its 0. T. type and its N. T. form. Respecting some of the passages
t
cited above,
e.
g.,
Gal. 3'.
it
may
fairly
writers easily
to the other -is a result and evidence of the fact that faith, whether
God
God
484
of the case the
GALATIANS
word
3'-
by
See
" Heb.
is
" n*
Jas. 2\
4"- "^
Gal. 3",
of
meant
inter-
an
God which
implies
faith
4^^^
an
In Rom.
TzhzEiji:;
'A^paxjx
like
faith
which
means "of an Abrahamic faith," i. e., possessing a that of Abraham was exercised outside of the regime of law.
Two
special attention.
On
by which
Christ
lifi
moral
upon the essential identity of such faith in God as existed in the O. T. period and the ChrisThe doctrine of faith in Christ is defended by an appeal tian type of faith. to the faith of Abraham, and the permanence and continuity of the principle of faith as the determinative element of God's demand upon men urgently maintained. The union of these two elements in his idea of Christian faith, viz., its higher possibilities and normal destiny, and its essential identity with the more primitive faith of an older period is an
the other hand, he laid great stress
On
peculiar to Paul.
the
The
latter appears in
almost
all
parts of N. T.
According to the
invites
men
to believe in
God and
them
to
assuming that the production of the one faith will generate the other, and, indeed, expressly affirming that he that receives him receives him that sent him (Mk. q'O- The fourth gospel expresses the
have
other forms.
explicitly in terms of faith (i2) and reiterates it in In the Epistle to the Hebrews Christians are exhorted to maintain their faith in Christ by 0. T. examples of faith in God. It is involved, implicitly if not explicitly, in this recognition of the essential identity of pre-Christian and Christian faith that while all faith has of
is
not a
Faith
may
It
differ in different
is
both
6
which
it is
exercised.
22" Acts
1=' 25 I
65
14"
i6
Rom.
i^' 4^^- ^o
126
41
Cor. 13"
i''^
Col.
Thes.
31" 2
Thes.
i' i
Tim.
5"
nisTis
was himself influenced by
with accuracy.
485
earlier Christian thought, is not easy to determine In the synoptic gospels, aside from a single instance which by its exceptional use of Pauline phraseology (Mt. i8; the phrase xtcTeuw addition d(; in Mk. g" is in all probability not original, but a harmonistic
from Mt. i8, and in the latter an editorial modification of the source), betrays an influence of the Pauline usage, the conception of faith is simple and relatively elementary. On the one hand, it includes the idea of trust
in
God
frequently expressed in O. T.
by
n->?3
and
in the
Lxx by
xlxoiOa
and e>vxfl;to, and, on the other hand, that of confidence in the willingness and ability of Jesus to do certain things, usually to heal sickness or rescue from danger, rarely to forgive sins. It is never so used as to imply that faith in Jesus necessarily involved any formal definition of his person or mission; it is not, for example, employed in relation to Peter's confession of the messiahship of Jesus (Mk. 8" and parallels). When the early church accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and confession that he was Lord and Christ became the keynote of the new religious movement that attached itself to his name, both the volitional and the doctrinal element of faith (cf. under xtaxeuo), i (c) and 2) became more definite and more prominent. Yet the simple use of the word "faith" continued (Acts 3i), and it is not possible to determine from the early chapters of
Acts precisely to what extent confession of Jesus in explicit doctrinal terms became associated with the word izioiiq. The noun is infrequent, and the
verb occurs almost wholly in narrative passages, which doubtless reflect the usage of the period when Acts was written rather than of that of the
events.
There can be
little
doubt that
it
was
movement owed
word
and the prominence of the N. T. as a whole. Clearly the emphasis on "faith" and "works of law" as antithetical conceptions is mainly due to him. That Jesus was, like Paul after him, a nonBut there is no reason to legalist, the evidence seems clearly to prove. think that he developed a sharp antithesis between law and faith. The early church believed in Jesus as the Christ, but it was not, for the most part at least, consciously anti-legalistic, and it apparently did not occur to the early apostles to set faith and works or faith and law in antithesis to one another. To Paul, also, we doubtless owe the conception of faith as creating a mystical union with Christ, which appears in his letters, and of
that strong emphasis on faith,
in the Christian
vocabulary which
is
reflected in
the influence of which the post-Pauline literature gives evidence. In this case as in so many others, Paul was a most important factor in the creation
of
new thought
W. H.
II,
of
Cambridge, 1917.
486
XVII.
GALATIANS
nNEYMA AND
I.
SAPS.*
nNETMA.
writers in /Eschylus.
Aristotle are
Its mean"wind," "air," "breath,"
A.
"life."
nvsG[jLa
appears
first
among Greek
ings in writers
down
to
and including
2.
The meaning
Xenophanes
first
is
said by-
Diogenes Laertius,
^uxf], is T^su[ia,
IX
this
statement Xenophanes
did not
mean
views of his predecessors that the soul lives after death as a shade, he affirms
that everything that comes into being the soul
is
is
and that
tj
but breath or
air.
i^,
To Anaximenes,
oXov xbv
a contemporary of Xenopha-fj
'^luxh, (p-qaiv,
TjtxeTspa
Tueptexet.
ouaa auyxpaxet
i}\i.aq
xal
nz\ieu[L(x
xal
ii^p
it was held that the soul was and xveu^a are nearly synonymous terms, and that both are used of a substance supposed to control the world, and hence in some sense of cosmic significance. Cicero says that Anaximenes made air God, but he did not, so far as we know, say either that TuveO^JLa was God or that God was Tcveu^jia, nor do we know of any other pre-Aristotelian writer who did so. Of Heraclitus, who found the origin of all things in fire, yet also, according to Aristotle, said that the origin of all things was soul, 'I'uxr}, Siebeck, op. cit., says that he thinks of xveG[xa as that which connects the soul with the surrounding air, which is itself thought of as more or less soul or spirit. Epicharmus speaks of earth {i. e., the body) as going Yet no pre-Aristotelian to earth in death, and of xvU[xa as going above. writer apparently uses xveufia as an individualising term or as the equivalent of soul. From Xenophanes down to N. T. times '^'uxh, soul, is an individual and functional term whose definition was not in that of which it was composed but in its functions; it is the seat of life, feeling, thought. xveufxa, on the other hand, is a term of substance, defined not by its functions, which are very variable, but by its qualities. Cf. the terms "knife" and "steel," "sword" and "bronze." Aristotle distinguishes between in-
suggests that
Zum. Evangelium
Rostock, 1868; Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist, Gotha, 1878; Dickson,
of the
Spirit,
"The Use
Glasgow, 1883; Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, of nn in the O. T. and of TTvevfua in the N. T.," in
Journal of Biblical Literature, 1904, pp. 13-67; Wood The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature, N. Y. 1904; Siebeck, "Neue Beitrage zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des Geist-Begriffs," in
XXVII, 1914, pp. 1-16; Burton, Spirit, Soul, and and 2apf in Greek Writings, and Translated Works fror.t and of their Equivalents ... in the ... Old Testament, to 180 A. D. Chicago, 1918; also articles of which the above-mentioned monograph is an expansion and revision, published under the same title in AJT. Oct., 1913; Jan., 1914; July, 1914; Oct., 1914; July, 1915; Oct., 1915. The following discussion is in part a reproduction and in part a condensation of this book and these articles.
Archiv fUr Geschichte der Philosophie, Bd.
Flesh
:
The Usage of
Ili'evju.a, ^'u^'?
nNEYMA
born
air, auix?uTov xveutxa,
487
But he air which is inhaled from without. a sense which he expressly distinguishes from meaning the air of which wind is composed, and apparently, also, which is in both autxtpuxov xvcGyLz, describing it as the substance
and
in
all,
Std xavxbq
StTjxs'.,
and
is
both living
is
and generative,
Mund. 4
(394 b. '"').
Thus
or akin to air, neither the soul nor God, but a substance identical with to others but possessing, according to some writers, intelligence, according of which the soul is composed, and to others a sort of the substance
being
life, if
not of
all existence.
order In post-classical Greek writers, the principal meanings of xvsutj.a, in The meaning "breath" drops out, of frequency, are "wind," "life," "air." passage in Dionysius or is absorbed in the meaning "life." In one under Halicamassensis {Antiq. I'O the word is used of a demon, perhaps
Hebrew
(Stob.
influence.
The
Stoics
made much
use
of
the
term
xvsO[xa.
itself
monistic view. Their 17O and the Stoics generally held this Affirming that the "spiritual" qualities. xveQtJ<2c has both material and it was real but that it soul is a(I);j,x, by which the Stoics meant not only that xveu[xa (Zeno possessed physical qualities, and, on the other hand, that it is
Ed.
i.
calls
^yLlv
it
xveuixa
evOspixov;
xQ>
to Galen, a6[x?uTov
auvsxs?
xavxl
they
indicate
itself
both
is
that
the
The
xveuixa, of
is
composed,
is
aw^a, but
permeated
vospa, with Xoyo?, and the organs of sense-perception are called xveuixaxa extending from the governing part of the soul to the organs of the xvsuyLa Posidonius was, so far as we know, first among the sense-perception. xupwBeq. Greeks to say that God was xvsO;jLa, to which he added vospbv xal years before Posidonius, Menander used the phrase xveujia hundred
Two
eslov in
was individualised and personalised and it remains that with rare if any exception, xvLi[xa is does not appear, of substance, not of to the end of the first Christian century still a term substance of functions, and a name not of God or the human soul, but of the
control of
it
it
the
which both are composed, a refined and ethereal substance, yet still a subprobably to stance and not yet thought of as immaterial. Akin to this, but Arisbe distinguished from it, is xveutxa as a permeating principle or force. was thought of as totle's language leaves it uncertain whether in his day it
extending to
Plutarch discusses all existence or to animate things only. the printhe distinction between the souls of men and irrational animals, stones, but does not ciple of growth in plants, and the force of cohesion in the power either of the latter xvsuiia. Galen, in the second century, calls
call
of cohesion
l-/.Ttx.ov xvs'Jii.^,
and
finally
common term
xvsO^a.
488
The
already in use in the
GALATIANS
use of similar language in Philo shows that this terminology was
first
century.
xveO^jLa
found
and Dio Chrysostom. It has the following four senses: "wind," "air," "breath," "the medium or bearer of psychic energy" (nervous fluid). The most notable fact here is the almost total absence of the meaning "spirit." B. The term in Hebrew which corresponds most nearly to TyzO'^a in Greek is nn. It bears three meanings, which, in order of frequency,
in Plutarch, Cornutus, Epictetus,
"wind," "breath." The genetic order is probably "wind," As spirit it denotes the Spirit of God, the spirit of man, and an evil spirit or demon, nn is also probably originally a term of substance, and retained throughout the O. T. period a trace of this meaning in the clinging to it of a quantitative sense, as is illustrated in
are: "spirit,"
"spirit," "breath."
But
by an
of
early development ot
meaning
ni-)
came
God, as that through which the power of God was manifested (Gen. i^), and in the later period as the power of God operative in the ethical and religious life of the people (Isa. 611 Ps. 51" ["j). In O. T. it was also used of the spirit of man, first probably meaning "strength," "courage," "anger," etc. (Judg. 8' Prov. i8'0, then the seat of these and other qualities, and finally the seat of mentality, though this last usage is late and rare (Job 20'). Alike, therefore, in the starting point and in the general range of usage there is a large measure of parallelism between the Hebrew nn and the Greek xveutxa, which made it inevitable that the latter should become the translation and recognised representative of the former. But there is also a marked difference between the usage of the two words, especially in the fact that the Hebrews so much earlier associated the term with God, making
God (the O. T. never says God is nn), but an expression or manifestation of God. C. In Jewish-Greek literature, including Greek works by Jewish authors, down to 100 a. d., whether translations of Semitic originals or originally composed in Greek, xveu[xa bears three meanings, in order of freit,
an individualising name
quency, as follows: "spirit," "wind," "breath." As "spirit" the term denotes the Spirit of God, the spirit of man, and superhuman beings both good and evil. Genetic relations can scarcely be spoken of, usages being
inherited rather than developed.
In the
Lxx we
i' 4138)
^nd
xveupia
of the Hebrew v-\p nn, probably modelled on the which Menander's usage proves to have existed among the Greeks and which itself occurs occasionally in the Lxx (Job 27^ 33^.
OsTov
The
far
more
influence of the
Hebrew
nNEYMA
D. N. T. usage of
closely
xvsu[xa, like that of other
489
Jewish-Greek literature,
T.,
is
strongly influenced
by the
than
it
ideas which
come from O.
which
it
follows
much more
Yet
it
own, which were probably in the main not derived from outside but developed within the circle of Christian thought. Of the characteristics of N. T. usage which dififerenalso shows, especially in Paul, peculiarities of its
from non- Jewish-Greek, and to a certain extent from all previous most important: (a) xveu[jLa is no longer prevailingly a substantial term, as in Greek writers, but, with few exceptions, individualising as in Jewish-Greek, following the Hebrew, (b) Its most frequent use is with reference to the Spirit of God. For this there is only the slightest precedent in the non- Jewish Greek writers. N. T., especially
tiate it
(c)
The
dent in Philo.
definitely
Whereas in Greek writers generally t|;ux"Q is the term which conveyed the idea of life and mentality, and xvEUfxa is a term of
substance, in itself conveying no idea of mentality, and ranging all the way from "wind" or "air" to an extremely refined substance of which God and the soul are composed, and while in the nearly contemporaneous Hermetic literature xvsQixa is definitely graded below ^oxr] in the scale of being,
in N. T. assumes a position of definite superiority to the ^vxtdue not to the degradation of <l)o-xi], but to the elevation of xveu[jLa. The former is still, as in the Greek usage generally, the general term for the seat of life, feeling, thought, and will. But icveufxa, having now become an individualised term and as such a name both for the soul of man and the Spirit of God, is used as the seat of the moral and religious life of man. (d) Tcveu[jLa is now used as a generic term for incorporeal beings, including in Paul those who have heavenly bodies. For this usage there is no exact previous parallel, though it has its basis in the application of the term A product of this usage and the prexvsijtxa to God and to the demons. ceding, or at least related to them, is the antithesis here formed for the first time between (J^uxtxoq and xvsuyi,aTt/.6<;, which in Paul is applied to bodies, designating them as suitable, on the one hand, to a 'I'uxf}, a soul in an ordinary material body, and on the other to a xveO^a, i. e., a soul no longer embodied in the ordinary sense (i Cor. 15"^); but also to men in a religious sense, distinguishing one who has not and one who has the
xveu[X3c
This
is
Spirit of
(f)
God
is
(i
Cor. 2'^^).
The
There
work
of the Spirit of
etc.,
God
in
and the
latter.
This appears
first in
Paul, and
The meanings
of xveuyia in
N. T. arranged
490
I.
GALATIANS
Wind:
oux
Jn. 3'^: to Tveu'^a Sxou QiXst xvel xal
t:?Jv
(pwvfjv
auTou dxouetq,
dtXX'
olSat;
i'.
II.
Breath, breath of
['Ir^aouc;]
Thes.
ixoxaXu90T)aeTai
6 <2vo;xo<;
8v i x6pto<;
(jTOtia-cov; aj-cou.
II" 13".
III.
Spirit:
an incorporeal,
Embodied, viz., human spirit, that element of a living man by virtue of which he lives, feels, perceives, and wills; variously viewed: 1. As the seat of life, or that in man which constitutes him a living being.
Lk. 8":
xal exlaxpetl^ev xh
xveuyia auifiq, xal dviax-q izapaxQWo^-
See also
Mt. 27" Lk. 23" Jn. 19" Acts 7" Jas. 2'. 2. As the seat of emotion and will, especially
life,
of the
Mk.
[xsv
xal
T)
Yva
[X-?j
eX0T]Te
elq
xeipaa'tJiov"
xb
xp60u[xov
S^ aap^ dcaOevTjq.
i7
61.
8.
Mk.
S'^
Lk.
i*'
Acts
Gal.
Cor. 2"
Pet.
3<.
71-
"
It
Phil.
4"
Jas. 4^ 2
human
by the divine
18).
As the
Mt.
5'
seat of
consciousness and
[i-Jj
intelligence:
see
also
4.
Mk. 28Lk.
b[i.lv,
i'".
Rom.
81":
!^(o-?)
lk
Xpiaxbq
xb
ix.ev
aGi[ia
vexpbv Sia
5.
*
(i[xapx(av,
2^ i
xb
Se xveO[xa
Bia
5txatoa6vT]v.
See also
Cor.
Phil,
i" Col.
4'^ i2 (?)
Rev.
B.
22.
Unembodied
or disembodied spirit:
more
is
whose mode
of life
the ordinary sense of the term; used of various beings so conceived, the specific reference being indicated by limitations of the word or by the context; thus of:
I.
(a)
in
human
experience, such
Ss xaptatxixcov
i23
.
Cor. i2<:
Statpsaetc;
4I8
^qII
J2IO.
12
Jn. 79
'6
32
q17 IQ".
<'>
*'
II^'''
^V
13,
16,
28
132,
123.
4,
9,
52
9.
158.
11.
28
i6 I9.
20"'
"
2I<'
'^b,
14
^lO
7,
8,
IS
i^i Gal.
3*-
Eph.
2'
36 I
i'-
2 Pet.
I
I'-i
Jn. 4*'
Rev. i"
Thes. s" i Tim. 4^ Heb. 2* 3' 9* lo'^ " 3' '= " 4' 141' 17' 21"'. In Acts 16'
is
risen Jesus.
HNETMA
(b)
eup^Bi)
(c)
491
Mt.
i^':
Active in an extraordinary
Iv
way
faaxpX e'xouaa
ex.
xveupiaToq &yio\j.
spirit for the
v6ijlou
i^o
Lk. i".
Operative in the
8^:
human
Rom.
Yva ib
Stxai'toixa -cou
xXiQpweTi ev
3^1
15b.
xa-rd
adpxa
16, '^-
TuepixaToOatv
dXXd xaxd xveuixa. See also Mt. I4I7. 28 1^26 1613 Acts 9" Rom. 55 82- '. S. 9. 13. H. I Cor. 2* 3" 6". " 2 Cor. i" 3'- ' " " 4" 5' Eph. I"' 1' 2i8' " 3!' 4'' '" 61'- i Phil. 21 3 Col.
3^
Mk.
Ua.
Lk.
23, 26, 27
gl 14I7 15I3,
'
s^^
i^-
i-
Thes.
20.
!=
48 2 Thes.
2I' 2
Heb. 10"
of
Pet.
1=
is
In
Rom.
The mind
God:
xd toG
8^^:
OsoCi
ov^sXq eyvwxev
(e)
Acts
Cf. I above.
xal uxiaTpe4iev
'Ir,couq
ev
t^ Buvd^et
toO
xveutAaToq elq
x-Jjv
TaXO-aiay.
(j^^) 334
1
31' 4^ 28''
Acts
I
i 6'-
5.
10
io3'
'
Mk. ii". " Lk. 3^^ 41 (ji^) nu jn. 132, 33 II" Rom. 8" (bis) Gal. s'* 4" Eph. 4< 518 Heb. 6*
221'.
Pet.
ii*
Jn. 3'*
2.
4"
5'
Rev.
The
(a)
ev
T(I)
spirit of man separated from the body after death: In a heavenly mode of existence: Acts 23^: ojSev xaxbv eupfaxopiev See also i et Se xveu[j,a eXdXr^aev auxw t^ ayysXoq dvGpwxcj) TOUTO).
xTOTQ0evTe<; Be xal
e[jLcpo^ot yevo^JLevot
IBoxouv xveu^a
i
6ea>pelv.
(c)
In Sheol:
Pet. 31':
ev
xal
lyuXaxTJ
xveu[xaacv xopeuOelq
exTjpu^ev.
3.
An
angel:
Pleb.
i":
A
13
demon: Acts
6'
>8
8^:
xo>v>.ol
[xeydXi]
l^^pxovTo.
91T.
13.
lo^
8'.
i2.
9'-
7"
20.
15.
25
(^J5)
Lk. 4"41
6"
"
"
3i.
26
j^u Acts
5i
i6".
1912.
16 I
Tim.
Rev.
i6i'-
"
18^.
5.
Without reference
any
being not corporeally conditioned, or to all such, or to a group (other than any of the above), defined by the context; used both of beings conceived of
as actually existing, and, especially as a descriptive term in negative expressions, of beings presented merely as objects of thought: Jn.
6
4'^*^:
xveu^xa
dXr^Oefcjt
Sec xpoaxuveiv.
(The
instance only
under
cpopiov,
this
head.)
Rom.
81^:
06 ydp ila-
See
'
"^
Eph. Rev.
i^
11'
2
31^*
Tim.
Jn. 41 {bis)
1* 31 4' 5Cf.
I
Enoch
492
C.
GALATIANS
Generically, without reference to the distinction between
spirit: Jn.
embodied
and unembodied
6"
(bis) i
II.
SAPS.
meaning "flesh," but
In the
is
literature the
some-
by metonymy
for the
whole body.
Lxx
it
translates
In N. T. certain further developments of meaning appear, and the word becomes one of the most important for the purposes of interpretation, especially of the Pauline epistles.
1.
Its
living: Lk.
exei
r.a\
oux
Qor.
xaOwq
Oewpslxs exovxa.
Jas. 5^
56,
63
153' iquater)
2.
[li]
Rev.
Lc^repafpwsxai,
1 15
13
-^xoi
ay,6\o'\)
i
x'n
Mk.
14'*
Jn.
(?)
Acts
Pet.
Cor.
24
Cor. 4"
^*
(bis)
Eph.
I
2"i''
318-
529 Phil. i.
8
10" i2
21
2^-
^-
"
Tim.
'
Heb.
91.
"
Jn.
'
Jude
".
By meton-
ymy,
3.
for
signifying, the
With
al[i7.,
By metonymy:
The
and of kinship (the body, or the body concerned with generation and kinship) Jn. 36'*: xb yeyevvr}ixevov Ix xfjq aapxbq a&pc, scxtv. (Only the first instance falls under this head. See also Rom. 4^ 9'- * i Cor. iqis Gal. 4". 29 Eph. 211*. Cf. 6 below.)
(a)
plus whatever
(b)
As a
aapxa xal
atojo) xtvaq
e^ aJxtov.
the ele-
ments
4.
of a
human
being.
to
human but
a.l\x<x
as corporeal:
oijx ig'-
xaxTQp
[XOU
Iv fxotq]
See
i'
also
8'^.
Mt.
24"
Mk.
Rom.
3"
(?) i Cor.
i"
6i Gal. ii 2i
Eph.
5.
5i
6"
Pet.
I '4.
By metonymy:
of
life,
the external as distinguished from the internal and real, or the secular
as distinguished from the strictly religious: Jn. 8": u[xet<; xaxa x-fjv aapxa xpfvsxs, lyo) o'j xp(v(o ouSiva (cf. 7"). See also i Cor. i" 7" 2 Cor. $^*
(jbis) 7
io
II" Gal.
61'
Eph.
6 Col.
3" Phm.
i*.
sAPa
493
6. The product of natural generation apart from the morally transforming power of the Spirit of God; all that comes to a man by inheritance rather than from the operation of the divine Spirit. The term as thus used
may
even
specifically include,
come by
thus derived
is
regarded
as inadequate to enable
man
d -ziq
aapy.'.,
See also
Jn. s^^
7.
Rom.
615 -5,
is,
25
That element in man's nature which is opposed to goodness, that in him which makes for evil; sometimes thought of as an element of himself,
sometimes objectified as a force distinct from him,
this latter usage being,
however, rather rhetorical: Rom. 8: -zh yap 9p6vY]tJLa tyj? capx,b? OdvaToq. i'- " "; perhaps Eph. 2 See also Rom. 8<- ' '- ' ^^ {his) " 13" Gal. s"- i.
{his) Col. 2"'
itself
!'
"
Pet.
21'''
i,
though in
all
may
in other
members
of the sentence.
In 6
man by
nature
is
moral inadequacy; in 7 the right impulses are credited to the voOq or the saw d'vOpwxoq, and the cdp^ becomes a force positively and
evil of it is its
aggressively evil.
It has often
been contended
and His
Interpreters,
above), is at the same time the body (2 above), and that it is to the compelling force of the body as such that, in his view, sin is due. If this is the case he must logically, at least, hold that the touch of the flesh is essen-
and that there can be no salvation except through the release from the body. That Paul associated the tendency to sin with the body is undoubtedly true (i Cor. 9") and is evidenced by the very fact But that he identified of his using adp^ for the power that makes for evil. cap^ as meaning body and adp^ as meaning the force that makes for
tially polluting,
of the soul
moral
evil, that he ascribed either to the flesh as physical or to the evil impulse which he called adp^, compelling force, seems thoroughly disproved by the evidence. It is often assumed that this view was the current con-
It
is
by
virtue of
its
materiality
man.
Apparently, also,
comparatively early in the Christian period the Gnostics had developed the view which Paul is alleged to have held, viz., that "flesh" and "spirit"
represent an antithesis which
is
at the
ethical,
is
it, and But the evidence does not seem to wardevelopment had already taken place in the
N. T.
Weber,
binism found the seat of the evil impulse, ye^er hara, in the
But
494
GALATIANS
Porter* has shown the incorrectness of that view, and Bous. affirms that Palestinian Judaism did not find the cause of sin in matter {Rel. d. Jud.^,
it is evident that there was in Paul's intellecwhich he might have developed such an idea, it is his own letters that must show whether he did or not, and they, in fact, show that he did not. The conspectus of usages given above shows that the term was no longer the simple one that it was in classical Greek. It had taken on new meanings from the Hebrew "ib*3, and developed still others not found in the Hebrew word. In this process of development, the
pp. 459/-)-
While, therefore,
steps of which
it is
fairly
is left
behind.
material.
Even in 3 b, as also clearly in 4 and 5, the term is no longer purely Nor is it so in 6. Under the term as so used (see Phil. 3") the
all that comes as the sequel of natural generation, both physical and immaterial, both good and evil, but especially the good.
apostle includes
When
metonymy
it is
same
element of heredity
the same time added the idea of the exclusively physical, which had already been dropped at a much earlier point. And this conclusion is confirmed by
we find usage 6 in a later letter than that in which 7 appears, which indicates that in the development of meaning 7 the apostle has not
the fact that
left
6 behind.
To
these considerations
it is
to be
ascribes compelling
life
power
be a
The
and overcome the flesh in its worst sense (Rom. 6^- Gal. 5i. 22, 23). Finally it must be said that so far from sharing the feeling that is expressed by Plato, Seneca, and Plutarch, that true blessedness is achieved only by getting rid of the body, Paul retained the feeling, derived from his Hebrew ancestry, that the soul could not be wholly happy withlife
in the flesh
may
and
out a body.
Cf.
i
is
Thes. 5";
Rom.
8".
We
body
and needs to be kept in subjection, and while there is a force in man that makes for evil, which he calls aap^, yet this force is not the body, and neither it nor the body exercises a compelling influence for evil upon the soul of man.
might perhaps have been expected that inasmuch as Paul frequently and aap^ in antithesis it would always be the same meanings that would be contrasted. Such, however, proves not to be the case. On
It
uses
xvsCi[jLa
the contrary, the numerous meanings of the two terms give rise to a
In Gal. 68
Cor.
5' 2
Cor, 4"
Rom.
num2". "
Col. 25, the contrast is between the flesh, or the body, and the spirit of man, an antithesis that in most Greek writers would have been expressed by cfo^a and ^^yri; but in most of the passages cited there is an emphasis on
7cveu[xa
New York
SAPS
by
iiQxh-
495
devotion of one's goods
flesh is the
(see
v/) and energies to the satisfaction of the demands of the body; sowing
devoting these things to the development of the
religious.
spirit-life,
to the spirit
which
is
In Gal.
is,
as in the
Rom.
which the
is
cricumcision which they were urged to accept took place; but the spirit
the Spirit of God, which they received
(v.^)
when they accepted the gospel, were wrought among them (v.^). In Gal. 4" a&g^,
Rom. g"-
s-
is
bom
(the
is
extraordinarily; in
Jew who depends upon his heredity for salvation towards meaning 6) in contrast with one whose life
of
idea suggested in
God, or possibly with one who has been born according to the Spirit, an Rom. 6* and further developed in Jn. 3'. In Rom. 1% despite the similarity of the phrases to those in Gal. 4". ^\ a&p^ is probably
to be taken as denoting a corporeally conditioned being,
and
-jcveuixa
as a
an unembodied being
(III
5),
of Jesus,
Somewhat
by a
similar
is
the contrast in
Tim.
3!*,
tioned
mode
and
xvsufjLaTt,
further
In Phil.
3' xveD[xa
God, and aap^, as already pointed out, all that man obtains by heredity. In Rom. 75 adcp^ probably means the totality of the life apart from the Spirit
(as in Phil.
life.
of religious
3O, while rveutJLa in 7* stands for the human spirit as the seat In Rom. 8*-'^ there is, as indicated above, a gradual transi-
meaning
is
of tjap^ to the
more
The absence of the article gives by which it approximates to the generic sense, as inclusive of the divine and human spirit, but the term probably always retains in the apostle's mind a reference to the
Christ identified with the Spirit of God. the phrases in which
it is
divine Spirit.
xveutxa
is
In Gal.
makes
for sin,
and
the divine Spirit, the omission of the article having the same effect
as in Rom., chap. 8.
496
GALATIANS
XVIII.
I.
AIA0HKH.*
CLASSICAL USAGE.
Aristotle, an extended exOf two hundred and twelve
Of the usage
writers
of
whose extant remains were examined the word was found in onlyDemosthenes, ArisDinarchus, and Hyperides. Among these writers Isaeus is the most
important.
slightly
The
following
is
changed as to form: 1. Arrangement, disposition, testamentary in character. (a) In the plural, of the single provisions of a will, but not designating the
a whole:
Isse.
i''^,
will as
yap
Stq,
avSpsq,
ttjv
wq
Ysypatxsxlvaiq
StaOTjxatq
e'Btoxsv
aiixolq
ooaiixv:
"For
if
now,
men,
as these
erty.
(b)
.
men
."
that
the plural
h
yap
Kovovoq
SiaOi^xat,
to:
a:;
StsOsxo
u'^zlq
Iv
KuTcp(p,
aaqjwq
eSYj'Xwaav oxi
the death of
that the
Isse. 2><;
"For Conon and the will which he made in Cyprus plainly showed money was a very small part of what you expected." See also Dem. 271^
xoXXostov
xpTj^axa wv
xpoceSoxaTs:
(c)
In the singular, of a
8ia8Y]x,T]v
will or
XI
923C,
8? 2v
ypi^T)
to:
abzou ^laiiQiixsvoq:
"whoever writes a
will dispos-
Dem.
46".
An arrangement
It
cepts
auvOifjvcT].
may
6":
xal
yp&']ixq
StaOTjxiQV,
e?'
xxTatt'SeTac
toutcjv nuOoScoptp:
"And
he deposited
it,
For other I'terature, see Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 208-302; Fricke, Das Exegetische Problem Gal. 3^, pp. 16-18, Leipzig, 1870; Schmiedel, art. "Galatians" in Encyc. Bib. II i6og; Conrat, "Das Erbrecht in Gal. 3"-4'" in ZntW. vol. V. pp. 204 J".; Riggenbach,
"Der
in
Zahn
A Lexicographical and Historical Study of AiaOTjKTj, from the Earliest Times to the End of the Classical Period, Chicago, igo8; Ferguson, The Legal Terms Common to the Macedonian Inscriptions and the New Testament, pp. 42-46, Chicago, igi3. Behra, Der Begriff AiaOriKr) im Neuen Testament, Naumburg, igi2; Lohmeyer, Aiafl>jK7j: Ein Beitrag zur Erkldrung des neutestamentlichen Begrijfs, Leipzig, igi3; reviewed by MoEFatt, in Review of Theol. and Phil. igi3, p. 338; Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, p. 148; Vos, "Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke," in Princeton Theological
dargebracht, Leipzig, igo8; Norton,
Op.
cil.
supra.
'
AlAOHKH
currence, with Pythodorus."
497
between the two general which Bta9T]xir], meaning
toc
tjisuofj
The
close relation
4^^,
meanings
a
will, is Tiiv
of the
word are
illustrated in Isce.
in
classed
among
ydp
au^jL^oXata,
oij
d'XXwv
ffu^^oXatwv
x,al
xdvu
lobq
[kagxopoOvzaq
xspl
eXsyxecv
"C^dvxoq
xapovxoc;
yvoiT}
tou
xpa^ovroq,
TdcXTjSfj
/.axa^apTupouaf
xt^;
tous
p-t]
Xlyovxaq, xxX.
See also
StaOTjxY]
olfSe
XI
922 A-C.
denotes a compact:
xouxouq
oj,
r]v
[x-?]
BtdOcovxat y'
Among
fol-
lowing: (a)
The custom
of will-making
among
adoption of an heir, (b) Adoption inter vivos was irrevocable except bymutual agreement; but adoption by will became operative at death, and such adoption and the will might be revoked at the discretion of the testator, (c) A StaOT]y.Y) in the sense of a covenant was revocable only by mutual consent.
II.
^'''.h
In the
Lxx
ScaO-^xT)
"covenant," "compact."
''
It
is
between men, most commonly between kings or peoples: Gen. 14" 21"- " le ^s, '' Ex. 23" Deut. 7^ Josh. 9j Sam. iii 2 Sam. s^^' " " 5^ i Ki. 512 20" 2 Chr. 23' [Lxx otherwise] ' Isa. 33^ Ezr. 16", etc. It is still more commonly employed of a covenant between God and men, in which case the initiative being thought of as wholly with God, the compact asform of a gracious promise on God's part to do certain accompanied by the imposition of certain conditions and obligations upon men. The word in its various instances emphasises, now the mutuality
in general the
sumes
things,
^^
God
(Gen.
g'-
"
151'
Lev.
and context); now the promises and now the obligations laid
igs
24'''
;
cf.
both
of divine initiative
and
Only rarely are men said to make a covenant with God (2 Ki. iji^ 23' 2 Chr. 34"), and even in these passages the act is perhaps thought as an acknowledgment of the obligation imposed by God. The word is of frequent occurrence in the Zadokite Fragment, the product of a sect of Jews who withdrew to Damascus, where they established "the New Covenant," "the Covenant of Repentance." This work is assigned by Charles to a period between 18 b. c. and 70 a. d. See Schechter, Fragments of a Zadokite Work, Cambridge, igio; Ch.ylP. II, pp. 785-834. The nna here spoken of is always a covenant with God, or established by God. Thus 6=: "In accordance with the covenant which God established 32
49^
with Israel."
GALATIANS
In
4-'
'
it is
ham.
is
i4.
12.
Damascus"
^^
(9-^)
See also
"
"
911.
12.
15.
25.
iq2
^2
i6''
20^ (Charlcs'
notation).
III.
USAGE IN JEWISH-GREEK.
the sense of the
The Lxx
this
use
is
SiaSTjxTQ in
Hebrew
.-in.3.
The
basis of
on the one side in the use of the term Bia6-f]x.T) by classical writers to denote a compact not testamentary in character, as in the examples cited under 2 above (esp. Aristoph. Av. 435-61), and, on the other, in the fact that the ordinary Greek word for "compact," auv0-^xT], was probably felt to be inappropriate to express the thought of the Hebrew nna, the latter being commonly used not for a compact between two
usage
parties of
substantially the
graciously created
special significance as
same rank, but for a relationship between by God, and only accepted by man. showing that the employment of the word in
it
reflected a real
with the possible exception of a few instances in which by metonymy it means "a decree," "ordinance" (Sir. 14"' i' 16" 45^')) and that both of the
covenant of
Jdth.
I
usually with Israel (2 Esd. 24" 28' 398 42^ 44". ' " " 455- 7. i*- 24.
^10 2
10'
25
Wisd.
18-=
4711 Bar.
2"
Mac.
57.
Mac.
i^ 73" 815),
and
of a
compact between
is
men
and
(Sir.
38" 41 ''
Mac.
i^i ii^).
In the
latter sense
StaOirjxTQ is
auve-^y.Tj
also used,
in 2
Mac.
it is
nant with
Israel,
and
Only once
(Wisd.
171^;
in
the Apocrypha
is auvBi^xTj
used of a covenant of
it
i22')-
Test.
XII
and
The same
idea
is
expressed in Jub.
'0 23. '
i.
"
14
"
"
is*-
"
"
i-
24" 30" 33' 48'; but as the Greek of none of these passages is extant, they can be cited only as evidence of the currency of the idea in Jewish circles in the second century B. c, not directly of the usage of SiaOrjKrf. The covenants here spoken of are the covenant with Noah (6*^-), with Abraham (i4"- " is*- ' ") with Moses on Mt.
".
M 16"
20' 21*.
22".
Sinai
(i'). etc.
is
cisioQ.
AIA0HKH
nom.
51, 52 (6); 57, 58 (8);
499
263 (45); Som. II 223, 224 {33); Spec. leg. II and Fifth Com.) 16^. These passages, of which the most significant are those from Mid. nom., do not seem to sustain the verdict of Cremer, p. 1008, and of Riggenbach {op. cit. p. 313) that Philo uniformly Only in Spec. leg. II i6 is this uses the word in the sense "testament." Elsewhere "covenant" is the more probable meaning. clearly its meaning. Both in the quotations from the Lxx and also in his own language he uses phrases that imply mutuality. See Mut. nom. 52, 58. Note also that in 58 he says that there are many kinds of StaGrixat, and in Som. II that
(Third, Fourth,
the
StaO-oxT) is
man;
true that Philo repeatedly emphasises the element of grace which the B'.aGrjXTj involves; but this fully comports with the fact that 8ta9Y]x,TQ is in
his
Leg. ad Cat. 37
thought and usage not a contract in general (for this he uses auvOtixTQ in [6] but a covenant between God and man, and that he is fully in agreement with the O. T. conception of the nature of that covenant.
is, moreover, an entire absence in the passages of any of those things which are characteristic of a will as distinguished from a covenant, as, e. g., its becoming effective after the death of the testator; an idea which is,
There
indeed, excluded
if
by the
fact that
God
is
the
maker
is
of the 8ta8T)XY].
Even
(as is
it
ment,
a new sense of the word. In Josephus 8ta9T]XT) uniformly means "a will," "testament," or "testa-
349 (13O
it
Herod the
See Ant. 17. 53 (s'), 78 (4O, 146 (60, 188 (8'), iQS (80, 224-249 (9<-0 passim, 332 (iiO; Bell. i. 4S1 (23'), 573 (29'), S88 (30O, 600 (30O, 625 (32O, 645 (32O, 664 {zz'), 669 {zz^); 2. 2 (lO, 20-38 (23-0 passim, 99 (60-
For a treaty between nations, or agreements between men, Josephus uses auv9T)x.T] (auv6f]xa0 Ani. 5.55 (i^O, 6.230 (iiO; Bell. 1.586 (30O, 7- 221 (7O et freq.; and for the making of an agreement CTuvTfGsaOat, Ant. i. 212
(12O, 300 (19O, 339 (21O
et
freq.
The absence
of
Bia9T)x,rj
in the sense of
"covenant"
covenant of
that
5ta9T)XY]
is
his people, though it is also significant of his feeling was not the suitable word in his day and circle of thought for an agreement between equals that in referring to agreements of this character which in the Lxx are called Bta9fixat he uniformly employs some other form of expression. See Riggenbach (Joe. cit. sup.).
God with
IV.
et al., Bta9TQXTr]
500
of "testament," "will."
GALATIANS
Many
i.
of these are
dated
in the first
See,
jg.
e.
s; 75.
ii.
i.
8; 187=; 326.
6, 10;
ii.
i,
n 388.
5;
uS'^;
261";
464^; 592.
ji^i?.
22j
7; 61330;
III 786.
iii.
ii.
3; 8968;
IV 1037";
II 2492^;
1113'; 1149^^
'';
Pdp^
3;
Pap. Lond.
106". ";
P. Oxyr. I
etfreq.
7512.
105'
freq.;
107';
Cf.
M. and M.
Voc. p. 148.
The
Didymus
^uaiv, oq
x.al
II, p. 87<ff-
significant.
oOSiva
[jleto:
t^
xal
Or^ptciST]
t-?)v
oux av axouodt^ot
i7:x^6i.-^z\.y
tt^jv
ea'jToO
vavTt'ov.
TsT^euT-^v
euBat^ovelv xa xsxva,
Ti^c;
xaXcoq
IxocXXov
tou-
'Axb
TauTTQq youv
"No one certainly is so cruel and brutal in his nature that he would not be concerned that his children should after his death be prosperous and get on well rather than the contrary. It is this parental affection, indeed, that leads those about to die to make a will and to provide for those who are still unborn, leaving them stewards and guardians, and committing them to their best beloved and exhorting them to care for them." From the usage, therefore, of writers before N. T. or approximately contemporaneous with it there emerge two distinct meanings of the word. "Testament" or "testamentary provision" is the most frequent use in classical writers, and is the invariable sense in Josephus and the papyri. The meaning "covenant" is very infrequent in classical writers, but is the almost invariable meaning in the Lxx, in the O. T. Apocr., both translated and original, both Alexandrian and Palestinian, and in the Pseudepigr. and Philo. The essential distinction between the two meanings is that in a testament the testator expresses his will as to what shall be done after his death, esp. in respect to his property; the covenant is an agreement between living persons as to what shall be done by them while living. This distincauxoI<;:
by the
is
il-
lustrated
by the
exx.
from
Isaeus, a StaOrixTi
may
testamentary in character.
the
StaOTjxT}
is
{r\>-\':i)
It is of prime importance to observe that in between God and men, so often spoken of in O. T., the
initiative
command
is
promi-
In emphasis on the former fact some modern writers seem to lose sight
of the latter.
V.
If
NEW TESTAMENT
USAGE.
amined,
with the facts above established in mind, the N. T. examples are exit becomes evident that in the great majority of these "covenant"
AIA0HKH
in the O. T. sense of rr-na
ing.
50I
is
and
as
just,
defined
See,
e. g.,
Mt.
26**
Mk. 14"
(with
its clear
God with
Israel;
cf.
also
Mac.
(with allusion to Jer. 31") Acts 3" and T> (with their explicit In the passages in Hebrews, 7" 8- -', reference to Gen. 12' and ly"). etc., despite the contrary arguments of Cremer, Riggenbach, et al., the most
')
Lk.
22=''
probable meaning of the word, except in gi*- ", is "covenant," the meaning which it clearly has in the passages quoted from the Lxx. It is noteworthy that the argument continues after these verses on the same lines as
before
thetical
They are most probably a parenattempt of the author to enforce his position by appeal to the facts
in a different sense (as a
concerning
modern preacher
discussing
law
in
to the characteristics of law in the wholly different sense used in modern science), or possibly even a gloss of an early The identification of the old covenant scribe. Cf. M. and M. Voc. s. v. with the law is paralleled in Sir. 24^' Ps. Sol. lo^; 2 Cor. s<^- *, etc. This is also the usage, prevailingly at least, of Paul. Rom. g*, with its
ment by appeal
which
it is
Rom.
11", with
its
it
be interpreted
in the light of
Mk.
142* (written
later
than Paul, but doubtless reflecting a tradition antedating his writing), or of Jer. 31", yields the same meaning; 2 Cor. 36. ", with their contrast between the new covenant and the old, the latter clearly referring to the
O. T. law; Gal.
sustains the
4'^
and Eph.
meaning "testament."
its
So
far
from
"testament"
being self-evident (as Cremer aflarms) that the word means such meaning must be found
presumption in
its
favour.
That evidence
is
Certain elements of the context are consistent with the meaning "testament," and apparently in its favour. Thus v." speaks of that which is to be obtained through the ZiaQ-qv-r] as xlrtpoyo[ii<x,
apparently conflicting.
a word commonly translated "inheritance." Again, in v.", with evident reversion to the thought of the xXripovo'^iix, the phrase xax' iiza-^fEklay
"heirs according to promise," occurs. The word xkr^pov6[koi becomes the occasion of the analogical argument of 4^-^, in which yCk-qpovoiioq clearly means "heir," not, indeed, one who has received his
y.>vT)pov6^ot,
in turn
who
is
to receive
it
is
On
the other
hand, the
to, clearly
of
which
speaks
is,
in the O.
a covenant. Either, therefore, the apostle, availing himself of the ambiguity of the Greek word, speaks of that as a testament which in the passage to which he is referring was conceived of as a covenant, or begin-
ning with the idea of the covenant he has at some point between
31^
and
4^
502
introduced the idea,
if
GALATIANS
not of the testament, at least the related notion of
As bearing on the decision between these alternatives the following facts must be considered: (a) It is against the theory that StaO'^x.T) in 3" is a will that it is expressly said to have been made by God. For a will becomes effective only on the death of the maker of it. The case of a father making a will and his son receiving an inheritance on the death of the father may be used to illustrate by analogy the relation of God and the believer, as is perhaps the case in 41^-; but it is more difficult to suppose
an
heir.
God
argument
of vv.i^-i' or,
is
though implied
the
in the language,
(b)
be ignored in
of v."
when
the will
The
oiaQ-qxri
here spoken of
it is
said
an agreement, which once made can not be modified (except, of course, by mutual agreement of th^ parties to it, an exception too obvious to receive mention), but is not true of a will. Ramsay's argument (Cow. pp. 349-370) that because Paul speaks of the Sta6rjy.T] as irrevocable he must have had in mind a will, and specifically a Greek will by which a son was adopted into a family and made an heir, fails of convincingness, and his conclusions have been disproved by Norton at several points, (i) His contention that a Greek will of this period ipso facto involved the adoption of a son, so that one accustomed to Greek usage would at once understand by SijcO-^xtq a will adopting a son, is not borne out by the evidence (Norton, op. cit. pp. 39-55. Cf. also the passage quoted above from Ar. Did., from which it appears that at the date
IziStaTaaccTat,
this
is
and
true of
was thought
(ii)
that a Greek will, whether involving adoption or not, was irrevocable (Norton, pp. 63-68). That adoption within the lifetime of the father was irrevocable after it had gone into effect does not carry with it the irrevocability of a will adopting a son at death, still less the irrevocability of wills in general. Nor can the
mention of adoption in 4^ be accepted as evidence that Paul here has in mind an adoptive will; so essential an element of his argument must have been stated here, not remotely suggested many lines later. The evidence of the papyri and of Josephus can not be cited for the custom in respect to Greek wills, but as showing what ideas Paul would associate with the word BiaOTQXTj, meaning "a will," it is not without significance that both the papyri and Josephus show clearly that the wills of which they speak are revocable. In respect to Josephus, see 5e//. i. 664 (33'), 668 /. iss*);
Ant. 17. 78 (42). (iii) Ramsay overlooks the fact that if v.^' be from Paul he here makes Christ the son and heir, and that it is foreign to Paul's
Schm.,
thought in this epistle to think of Christ as son and heir by adoption. art. "Galatia," in Encyc. Bib. II i6oq.
Cf.
To suppose
maker
can modify
to reduce
it
to absurdity,
AIA0HKH
since the precise purpose of the
of the Sta0^x.T3, could not
503
Nor can
St'
the force of
argument is to show that God, the maker by the law that came in later nullify the former. this fact be evaded by appealing* to v." as evidence the law as given by angels, hence not from God; for
as being given
dcyye^"^ does not describe the law as proceeding from the angels, but only by their instrumentality, and the whole argument of vv."-^'
Only then, in case the apostle's implies that the law proceeded from God. argument in vv.i^-i' involves the application to the Sta6T)XTj .... GsoO of
statements true of a BtaOTix-n dtvepwxou only after the death of the testator, which would deprive the argument not only of convincingness but even
of speciousness,
If
can the StaO-rjxT) be a will. with this evidence against the meaning "testament," we reconsider the evidence of vX-qpoyo'^ia: and v.\r]pQy6\xoq, we do not find that this furFor Y.'kripovo[i.i(x does not nishes any substantial evidence in favour of it. but often at all uniformly mean "inheritance" in the strict sense of the word,
"possession," occurring as the translation of the possession which is promised to the seed of
n^qj
and
in reference to
Abraham
in the covenant.
See note on
tutes
x"XY)povo[i.ta,
chap. 3'K
no argument
On
the
contrary,
by
association
xXT^povoiAoq, in
In the Lxx, where 3", undoubtedly reverts to the Y.Mgoyo\ii(x of this is also this word occurs infrequently, it always means "an heir," and for the meaning "posits meaning even in the passages cited by L. & S.
sessor" (Isoc. 109
latter passages the
See also Plut. Cic. 41'. Yet in these used tropically, and though in Rom. S^^ it means So here, also, "heir," it can not be taken in the strict sense of that word. not "one inas the reference to x>.Y)povoiJL{av implies, it probably means,
e;
word
heriting under a will," but "destined recipient of the promised possession." The u>e of yCkfipow-^oi at this point doubtless leads to its employment in
the illustration in 4"^- probably with a closer approximation to the usual sense of the term, though even here there is no reference to a will or the
death of the father, and the term quite possibly means "one who is to come But whatever the exact sense into possession of property at a later time." meaning of %\T,povi[ioq here, it is more reasonable to recognise a shift of
at this point, or a gradual shift from 3^= to this point, than from this point which is to carry back into Btx6T)XT) in vv.i. ", the meaning "testament," at variance with the evidence of that passage itself. the If appeal be made from the evidence of the passage to the usage of
readers,
it
and it be said that to them otaOTjx-r] could mean only "testament," must be answered (a) it is not certain that the meaning "covenant" was
wholly unknown to them. See the evidence respecting classical usage (b) The assumption (of Ram., e. g.) that the Galatians, being above,
Gentiles,
StaOY)x-r]
in the
in
common Greek
sense, ignores
Schmiedel,
art.
"GaUtiam,"
Encyc. Bib.
1611.
504
GALATIANS
2^^^-,
that
throughout chaps. 3 and 4 Paul is replying to the arguments of his judaising opponents, and is in large part using their terms in the sense which their use of them had made familiar to the Galatians. See detached note on
Sons of Abraham, p. 156. Nor is the general assumption that Paul's usage is governed by that of his Greek readers sustained, but rather discredited, by a study of Paul's vocabulary in general, which clearly shows
that he
terms.
is
strongly influenced
e.
by the usage
adp^,
of the corresponding
SixatoauvT]
Hebrew
a^iapxla.
Cf.,
g.,
xveO^jLa
and
v6[jlo<;,
and
Whether Paul, like many modern preachers, used his own vocabulary in his own sense and left to his readers to gather that sense from his way of using it, or whether the meanings which Greek words had acquired among the Greek-speaking Jews were more familiar to the common people among
the Greeks, or
among
Greek
of that period
would lead us
to suppose
whatever
the reason, a
study of the apostle's use of words shows clearly that he was not at all limited in his use of them to meanings that can be proved to exist by the
evidence of contemporary Greek writings.
To
'
am
Hebrew
Ramsay in
indeed,
by
the usage of
that expression.
If,
it
was
irrevocable, then
it
would be
evident that Paul's argument would on that account have appealed more
most discriminating readers would But even in that case it would remain probable that by 8ta6T]XT) Paul meant simply a covenant. The contention of Halmel, Uber romisches Recht im Galaterbrief, that BtaO-/)XTj refers to a Roman will, is refuted by the fact that the Roman will was revocable by the maker of it. In favour of the view advocated by Hauck in Th.St.u.Kr. 1862, pp. 517/., and adopted also by Bous. (SNT. ad loc), that Sia0T]XTr] signifies a stipulation (legal instrument), in a sense broad enough to cover both "will" and "covenant," there can be cited some classical examples of StaOiQXTQ referring to an agreement that included stipulations of a testamentary character
effectively to the Galatians, since the
{cf.
Norton, pp. 30-38), but against it is the fact that it brings the statement with the facts, since it is now well established that
it is by no means impossible that Paul more common usage of StxO-rjxT] in the Greekspeaking world at large, have converted the "covenant" with Abraham into a "will," and based an argument concerning it on the usage of the Greek world in respect to wills, yet the evidence of usage and the passage
snEPMA
tends strongly to the conclusion that this
4^
505
is not what he did, but that, he arrived by successive shadings of thought at the idea of an heir, by 8(a0YjXT] 31'' ' he meant not "will," but "covenant," in the sense This conclusion is in harmony with the usage of of the O. T. nn3.
though in
N. T. generally (except Heb. g^^^) and with the whole context in GalaA covenant or compact duly executed is irrevocable; not to fulfil tians.
it is
a breach of faith.
"It
it
is
evident,
first,
from ordinary contracts or agreements, was the oath under the solemn and terrible rites in use a covenant is an intensified oath, and in later times the term 'oath' is usual as a synonym of covenant. And, secondly, as the consequence of these solemnities, that the covenant
covenant, distinguishing
was an inviolable and immutable deed. Hence a frequent epithet applied The penalty of breaking to covenants is 'eternal' (2 Sam. 23^, Lk. 248). the covenant was death through the curse taking effect" (Davidson, in UDB. I 510; see more fully there, and cf. Gen. 15'^-'^ 26" 3i"). The O. T. covenant involved promises (see eicayyeXfat, v.^^), and might be
spoken of with practically exclusive reference to the element of promise or with special reference to the possession (x>.T5povo[x(a) which they receive to
whom
To
it
should
be added that
StaGTjxT]
argument
little
in its essential
and
important features
after
all,
a matter of
consequence whether
whith he
meant, for him, a covenant 01 a testament. The proposition for is contending is clear, namely, that the principle of faith which
in the
promises to him
is
which he discovers
in the law.
Whether he conceived
in his effort to
of the revelation to
Abraham
ically speaking,
will,
and whether
men, or
is
XIX.
distinction
SnEPiMATI
AND SHEPMASIN.
For the interpretation of the argument which is made to turn on the between axepixaxt and ax^pfxaaiv the following data must be
I.
considered:
The word
>'T.,
rendered by
i"-
aiuepfxa
in the
Lxx,
is
used sometimes
sometimes of the semen virile (Lev. i5*' *' i), but is most commonly a collective noun meaning "posterit}'." In a few cases it is used of a single person (Gen. 4" 21'' i Sam. i^i
'"
" etc.)
Sam. 7"
if
not in
all
506
as belonging to,
o?"'?."^!,
GALATIANS
the posterity of the parent spoken
of.
The
plural,
occurs in
of grain," "grain."
is
In post-
biblical
language a plural
and nio
by
side.
In Greek writers axspfxa has nearly the same usage as the Hebrew but occurs much more frequently in the
i;*i";
yy,,
plural,
(a)
the
common term
for grain.
See
^wA.
Pap.
I 20'in as
BM.
>>,
from the
first
century
BGU.
many
grain receipts,
many
Pap. Kar. contains 91 examples of them dating from A. d. 158-9; (b) the
Pind. Pyth. 3",
etc.,
meaning semen
Epict. Diss.
it is
virile is illustrated in
Eurip.,
and
in
I. 9*; I.
13';
(c)
among
the Greeks a poetic term (^sch. Fr. 295, Cho. 503); (d) the is also chiefly poetic in Greek writers;
etc.
thus in the singular in Pind. 01. 9"; lEsch. Prom. 705; Cho. 234; Soph. Ph. 364, The use of the plural axlp-jxaxx for descendants is rare in classic writers
(^sch. Eum. 909, Soph. 0. C. 600; once even in Plato, Legg. IX 8S3C). 3. In Jewish-Greek a%kg\ia is used (a) of the seeds of plants: in the singular in Gen. !" i'. " Deut. 28'8 i Ki. 18", etc.; in the plural in i Sam. 8"
Ps. i26 Isa.
i^^.
i^;
is;
Enoch
the semen
virile,
i'-
(c) in
9"
17s
of the posterity of
and very frequently in Lxx. So also in Ps. Sol. Abraham and David. In i Enoch 22' it is used Cain, and in the phrase axiptia dvGptoxwv, meaning
it is
"men."
tor:
In a few passages
common
ances-
Prov.
4" 21"
(for
j?)
Susan. 56;
to
be under-
stood as the
ants:
Hebrew term is explained above; (e) in the plural for descendDan. (Th.) 11"; 4 Mac. 181; Jos. Ant. 8. 200 (7*). Of oxepixaxa used
ni^y-^r
in the sense of
of late
of descent," there
In N. T. ax^pjxa
is
12"' "
and in the plural (Mt. 13" i Cor. 15"); remnant of a nation from which it may semen virile: Heb. 11"; (c) in the sense, "race," "pos Jn. 7 8" Rom. i 41', etc. An instance of the noun
snEPMA
5.
507
oTzip^iazi in
Gal.
31' in-
but xtX
TO) GTCep^jLaxt
which
God
is
God
of the seed of
Abraham.
pertained
whom
it
Gal, 3"
beyond
it
all
'jy,
in
Hebrew and
axip^ia in the
Lxx
17'-^
Yet
must
also
be given to the seed of Abraham does not necessarily involve the participation of all the seed in that possession (the assertion that a
man
left his
prop-
mean
that
all
the
members
of the
family share in
it);
by
Paul in Rom.
scendants of
9^),
among
is
the de-
Abraham and
restricted to
and
axep^Jia,
way
is
a seed which
it is
is
the
descended
from Abraham.
Of the suggestion thus afforded by Gen. 21'' Paul, in fact, avails himRom. g^^-, using the word axspfxa in v.', qualitatively, of Abraham's descendants without distinction, but in v.* to designate those who are heirs In the following verses of this passage, also, he argues of the promise. that the separation between the seed of Isaac and Ishmael was followed
7.
self
in
by other
(v.).
8.
like divisions,
new people
those that are called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles
whom
the promall
ises
and
as including
that
believe,
in
both Jews and Gentiles. This is also the view distinctly expressed the immediate context of the present passage (v.^^).
In
this
9.
same passage,
vv.-*''
"\
one person
(elg)
in
The sentence
i
is
ambiguous, but
la^^,
its
thought
may
be kindred
Cor.
body
ancestor;
Rom.
9^-
''
^^-
".
Thus
all
believers as a single
body
or race desig-
nated by
its
if
5o8
GALATIANS
These considerations suggest three possible interpretations of Gal. 3": (a) That axlptxa is to be taken as meaning an individual descendant (c/. I and 3 above), and h6q as one person, ffTcep^xaTa as meaning descendants, and xoXXwv many persons, and Xptatoq is to be understood of Jesus
is, "He says not to the seeds, meaning many meaning one person, viz., Christ." (b) That c-zip'^ct means a single line of descent, ev6q one such line, axip[xaTa lines of descent, TzoXkdM many such lines, and Xpcjxoq is to be
personally.
which Christ
PP- 139 !> Gentile (see
is
the head; so
Cf. also
who makes the plurality which Paul Rom. 4^^), bond and slave, etc., and
CTxipixa
denies, that of
Jew and
and axlptxaxa are to be understood as designating and many individuals (as in i), and XptcToq as a personal name, yet as standing not for Jesus alone and strictly as an individual, but for him as the head of a race or community; cf. 9 above. Could it be shown that axiptxaxa was in Paul's day current in the sense which is expressed by mo in late Hebrew, the second of these interpretations would probably have the strongest claim to acceptance as being most consistent with the attested usage of words and the apostle's usual interpretation of Abraham's seed, though it would involve a use of
(c)
That
respectively one
Nor
is it
impossible
could
mean nothing
else
than posterity, has invented for it so used a plural; "He speaks not of posterities, but of posterity"
Ltft.
suggestion).
ad loc, who in defence of a different interpretation makes a similar If the absence of evidence of such a use of axip'^ocza, and
it
this idea
more
clearly than
of their
Of these the first is For while the use of the singular axip'^x is not precisely identical with that found in the passages cited in 3 (d) above, it is approximately so (see esp. Gen. 4-5), and the classical examples, 2 (d), clearly show that such a meaning is not foreign to Greek usage; the sense ascribed to the plural is verified both by classical and late Greek usage. But its inter(c).
and
i Cor. 1212 and Sief. ad loc.) be necessary to choose between open to no serious objection on purely
will
lexical grounds.
the seed of
tle's
Abraham
else
is
in conflict
everywhere
The
third view
is
open
But
since
it
takes
snEPMA
retains the apostle's usual conception of the thing referred to,
it
509
must prob-
the word in a sense vouched for by examples from Greek writers, and
ably be preferred to either of the other possible views. thus interpreted may be paraphrased as follows: And when
The argument God said " and to thy seed" he spoke not of many persons, the descendants of Abraham in general, but of one person, and that one Christ, who is the head of that people to which belong all that are joined to him by faith.
But
it is difficult
most probable
of these interpretais
tions as
an expression
incapable
of adopting a rabbinic
method
of interpretation,
but because
of the inhar-
ment
vy_28.
at this point.
29^
moreover, not in harmony with the thought of where the word "seed" is used collectively and predicated not of
It
is,
who
are Christ's.
These considerations
06 Xeyet to Xpiazoq is
from
not a primitive
There
is signifi-
cant evidence to which due attention has not usually been given (yet cf. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paid, pp. 366/.) that at so early a period that the evidence of it is now chiefly, though not wholly, internal and not
documentary, the
process
of
epistles
of
To
this
we may assign the bringing together into one epistle of the three or more letters that are now to be found in so-called 2
all
parts
Cor.;
Romans; the
appending
2
of the
doxology of Rom.
of these latter quite
1625-27^ if
Cor.
13I',
both
letters;
editorial
That these processes were not accomplished solely by paste and scissors, but involved some addition of at least short phrases or sentences is evident. It
is
comments on the
but
text were
added either directly to the text or to the margin, have become incorporated into the parent
As
it is
evident
it
complete in
make.
it
The
objection to
xw axsp^jLaTi auxou and that the inand such a comment as an early the first of the above-named interelse-
pretations that
conflicts
of course, not
apply
if it
is
an
editorial remark,
this interpretation is
probably to be preferred to
is,
"a
forced and
exceptional usage," and that the apostle "is not laying stress on the particu-
510
lar
GALATIANS
is
used, but on the fact that a singular noun of some kind, a collective employed, where to: xixva or ol dxdyovot, for instance, might have been substituted, encounters the difficulty that, making the contrast between seeds and seed, between many and one, a contrast not between many
word
term
many persons and one body of perunsupported by intimation of the passage that such is the nature
rather does
it.
directly to exclude
To have
e.
the clause oq eaTtv Xpiazbq seem expressed this thought would have required
after
ev6g or at
Ell.
a collective
XptaTou
term awixaroq,
oq
axsptxcc
g.,
least
oq eaxtv
-zh
a(b[i.a
in place of
etjxiv
Xpiaxdq.
apparently wavers
between
understanding
inclusively as denoting
and Xptaxoq of Christ personally and taking them "not merely the spiritual posterity of Abraham but
is all
him
in
whom
that posterity
organically united."
XX.
The meaning
early
of
axotxeia tou
/.6a[A0L
the
Christian
centuries,
and
is
still
in
found in
in later
Greek writers
line,"
of very frequent
related to axolxoq,
is
fundamental meaning
of a series."
"a row," "a rank," and its apparently "standing in a row," hence "an element
"a
Grouping in one conspectus usage from Plato to Plutarch, with occasional use of later passages, yields the following table of meanings: I. An element of speech, a letter of the alphabet, or, more exactly, the
dementary sound
tbaxepel cToixsta are, as it were,
for
which
all
it
stands:
(6v6[X3tTa)
twv aXkay
elements of
ia-zX
"(names) which
See also Plato,
com. IX, Prob. 31; Philo, Opif. mund. 127 It is expressly distinguished from the syllable, because the latter (42). can be broken up into diverse elements, in Aristot. Mctaph. 6. i7>2 (1041 b"); Poet. 20. if. (1456 b^off); Categ. 9(12). 3 (14 a"ff).
KaTd: cTotxelov
By metonymy,
ri (rjoLxtla. ToO /coo-Mov in Gal. 4' and Col. 2," in JBL. 1896, Pt. I, pp. 183/.; Spitta, Der zweite Brief Petrus u. d. Br. d. Judas, pp. 263/.; Everling, Die paiilinische Angelologie u. Ddmonologie, pp. 6s/.; Diels, Elementum; Deissmann, art. "Elements" in Encyc. Bihl.; Pfister, "Die o-Toixeto ToO /c6o-/xou in den Briefen des Apo.steU Pauius," in Philologus, LXIX 19^0, pp. 410/.; Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, pp. 24/., 61 Jf.; Clemen. Primitive
Christianity, pp. 106 /., 109/.; Reitzenstein,
the abundant literature upon the subject the following works are of special note: Neander, Planting and Trainins of the Christian Church, Bk. Ill, chap. 9; Bk. VI, chap i; Schneckenburger, "Was sind die aroix^la roO Koa/jLov?" in Theo!. Jahrbuch, 1848, pp.' 444-453;' Hilgenfeld, Der Galaterbrief, pp. 66/.; Hincks. "The Meaning of the Phrase
Of
an
Meyer
series,
Poimandres, pp. 71, 74, 80.; Sieffert, Der Brief gth ed.),pp. 235/-; Dibelius, Die Geistenvelt im Glauhen des
STOIXEIA TOY
atoixeta:
KOSMOT
2. i*,
51
as of things in general:
5. 9^
Xen. Mem.
cf.
(1309 h^');
Isoc.
18 a (2'); of a discourse:
(1362 a"); 2. 22" (1396 b^'. "); Dion. Hal. Comp. verb. 2. component parts of physical bodies. According to Diogenes Laertius first used by Plato in this sense. Empedocles employed the term ptl^wtxara and Anaxagoras a'^zip[i7.-za, though Aristot. Metaph. i. 4* (985 a"); 2. 3' (998 a"), ascribes the use of aTotxs'ov to Empedocles, and Diogenes Laertius (II i^; IX 3 2) employs it in speaking of the views of other preSometimes identified with ipx'f)) sometimes distinSocratic philosophers.
Aristot. Rhet.
2. i. 6^
One of
the
guished from
TCczvToq:
it:
Qioiyzlct.
xoH
"We
i. i^
call
them
(fire,
water,
air,
them as
(338
a=*), etc.
By metonymy,
axotxs'ov.
anything that
is
and
indivisible
is
called
Likewise,
it
by metonymy, the
term arotxelov
Metaph.
4. 3'
(1014 b').
Among
the term
witnesses,
air, fire,
was
in
common
which were distinguished from the two ipxai, Oedq (Xdyoq) and uXt) (oOa(a). See, e.g., Diog. Laert. VII i^sf- (134/.); Ill ii' (24); V i'^ (32); VIII 2"
(76);
IX
32 (21),
by Stoicism: Wisd.
Epict. Diss. 3"- ";
yi7 iQisj
Mac.
121';
Herm.
Vis. 3. 13';
Just.
Mart. Dial.
62*;
Athenag.
22*.
By
Opif.
Philo and Plutarch the term was applied also to the sea, as one of the
parts of the earth: Plut. Quest, conv. VIII, Prob. 8f; Aq. an Ign. 8^; Philo,
mund. (131)
at.
t.
/,.
45.
In Orac. Sib.
2'"* it is said:
y.6c[i.ov,
ri[i.(X'zac,
and the
vuxTe?;
are defined as
dtT)p,
in
8'"
as
yata,
Q&Xaaaoc,
icupbq at9o[JLsvoio,
is
r.od
TcdXoq
i^tJ^otTa
x4:vtx.
In
3'<',
otherwise
very similar to
plete its
2^^, Td: is
x-lpsutJ^' naturally requires a genitive to commeaning and the 16c. after its noun is in any case awkward, it is a question whether it should not be omitted in 2-^^ and 8". In any case, we have here an exceptional conception of the jTotxsta, including two of the Stoic four elements, the sea, which Philo and Plutarch also call axocxetov, and four others which may be called semi-astronomical. By metonymy axoixetov denotes that in which qualities inhere: Plut.
As
A
al
Metaph.
(Lv
2. 3'*^-
(998 a'^):
xal twv
StaYpaiJL[JL(4T:G)v
Tauxa
axot-x^la
"kiyo^ev
iizolsi^eiq
evuxipxouatv.
4. 3*
See
also
Plut.
Marcell.
Aristot.
Metaph.
512
in this sense that the
GALATIANS
word was applied by
later writers to Euclid's
work on
mathematics, and that of Archimedes. Aristot., Mctaph. 4. 3* (1014 b'ff) apparently using axotxetov and apxt as synonyms, calls the unit and the
point
8.
(ipxa(,
atotxeiov.
In Topica
is
8. 3'
(158 b"),
applied to a line or
circle. It is in a kindred sense, also, that Aristot. uses cTotxsiov of the even and the odd, the limited and the unlimited, as the fundamental elements of things, Metaph. i. 52 (986 aO-
line."
anim. 29.
With a
tinguishable from
instruction.
ySfi<sT(]<;
Isoc.
18 a
eaxcv.
a simple or elementary principle of knowledge or (2i): xauxa ydp axotxela xpwxa xal ixiytcyxa
xoXtxet'aq
ixev
Nicolaus Com.
eaxt
xfjq
oXtjc;
i.
579):
Gxotxela
xaOx'
-zix^riq.
Plato,
Legg.
VII 790C; Aristot. Metaph. 4. 3^ (1014 a'O; Heb. 5"; and cf. Xen. Mejn 2. V, cited under
5. Aristotle,
having in mind the previous senses of the word, employs it as an inclusive term to cover two or more of them, defining it as "that from which as a constituent first principle, indivisible into other kinds of things,
things of another kind are produced": Mctaph. 4. 3^ (1014 a^'-^i): axotxelov Xeyexat 1^ ou ouyxetxat xptoxou lvuxd:pxovxoi; dtSiatplxou xw ecSei elq Ixepov
el^oq.
Cf.
Metaph.
2. 3^^-
(998 a"^);
6. 171^
49 says: ou ycip cxotxelov dgx^ fb [j,e[xtY[Xvov, aXk' i^ &v (xejAixxat, and a little later refers to the four xpwxa aioix^la. Cf. also Prim. frig. 7. But in Plac. phil. i'-' he disouS'
Plutarch in Com.
not. 48,
com-
from
dcpxrj,
which
is
(a)
qjTQOty
A heavenly body, star, sun, constellation, etc. A constellation: Diog. Laert. VI 9' (102): ouToq
'Ixxd^oxoi;,*
.
{sc.
MsviBr^ixoq),
xaGa
zlq
.
xlXoq 'ApxxStxbq ex^ x^q So also in "A Syriac Life of Clement of Rome," in Bulletin of John Rylands Library, Vol. IV, No i
.
. . .
ax^[i.a xepc^et
^v Se aixo)
eaGr)? auTY]
xd SwBexa axotxeta.
p. 88.
Diels,
Elementiim, p. 45, places Hippobotos at latest in the 6rst Christian century; bu-
Christ, Gesch. d. gr. Lit. II i^, p. 68, declines to fix his date except as after Sotion.'who belongs in the second century b. c, and before Diogenes Laertius {ca. 200 a. d.). It must also be remembered that the employment of irroi.xela by Diogenes Laertius in reciting the statement of Hippobotos is not conclusive evidence that Hippobotos used the word, for Diogenes, though stating in III i> (24) that Plato was the first to employ it in philosophy, elsewhere uses it in quoting the opinions of pre-Socratic philosophers. See II 1'; IX 3* (21).' Our first decisive evidence of the use of CTToixeioc in an astronomical sense is, therefore, that of the Christian writers of the middle ef the second century.
von
STOIXEIA TOT
(b)
KOSMOT
513
Trypho,
In the general sense of a heavenly body, a star or planet: Just. Mart. 23': bpazz oxt xd; azoix^la. ouv. dpyel o'jBI acz^paxfl^si. Just. Mart.
5':
Apol. II
b 8ebq xbv
xdvra xoatAov
^l<i
xotiQffaq
y.3.\
xa
wpwv
Ep. oJ Diogn.
ffxotxs'a.
72
Col.
Cf.
IV, V.
show that the term here, while including the heavenly bodies, includes also fire and earth hence that the word means not the stars or sun, but the
Cf. exx.
from Orac.
Sib.
under
in
2.
By metonymy
7.
a great man, a
light,
24,
spirit or
demon.
Manetho 4'" {ca. 300 b. c.) xauxa xot oupavfwv daxpcov axotxsla xexuxxat. But the context does not require anything other than the familiar classical usage of the word (physical) elements, and in view of the
word
in
is
improbable.
Everling, Die
of this usage
in his
und Ddmonologie,
the basis of mss.
cites as
an example
C. C.
On
HLPVW,
McCown
tw
eu(xop<pa
etSet xal
suoxTQtia.
x(ve<; eaxd;
sxT)pa)xr,ffa
auxd* b\Lzlq
5s elxov
Deissmann {Encyc. Bib. art. which Hephaestus is called axotxs'ov i^s\i.(fiq, and the Hermes Trismegistus, in which the gods come as axoixsia before the supreme God. This evidence, confirmed also by modern Greek usage, leaves no doubt that axotxslov did eventually come to mean an "angel," "spirit," or "god." What is not clear is that this usage belongs to the first century a. d. That the Jewish writers ascribed a spirit or angel to various physical objects is clearly shown from I Enoch 6o"-2i; Jub. 2"^^- cited by Bous. {Rel. d. Jud.-, p. 372), but not that they were called axoixela. Bous. cites 2 Enoch 16^ as evidence of this. But aside from the fact that we have not the Greek text of this book and hence can not say for certain that axotxsia occurred in this passage, the occurrence of the word "elements," between the words "spirits" and "angels" scarcely proves that this word itself means "angels." Chaps. 12' and 151 identify the elements of the sun with the Phoenixes and Chalkydri, which are flying creatures, with feet and tails in the form of a lion,
xa(
9iQatv
h xpioxo?-
lyw
zl^i
^ 'AxdxT),
"Elements")
cites the
Orphic
Hymns
65*, in
This
1-45.
is
DC
t
For
(TToixeta,
etc.,
VWGl.
read ra
\ey6fi.eva. (ttoix^Io- ol
TouTov.
(XToi\eiiiiv
6 n-pIiTo;, etc.,
33
514
them angels or
is
GALATIANS
like those of angels,
a spirit (xveQtta) in the stars, the angels, the plants, the water, in men,
in animals.
This
is
icvsOixa
which appears in
Sextus Empiricus (B SSF. pp. 139/.), but involves no use of ctoixsTov in In chap. 21 Tatian says he can not be persuaded to worship this sense. Twv (jTotxsfwv
T-?)v
u7:6cjTczatv.
But the
is
no
meant
"demon"
earlier
than Test.
earlier
Sal.,
which
in its present
form
is
post-Christian,
tury, to
which
McCown
1260;
cf.
Harnack, AUchristliche Litteratnr, I 858. Of the various meanings of xdafxoq (in Greek literature from down) the following only need to be taken into account:
Homer
1. The world in the physical sense, with greater or less inclusiveness, but not with exclusive reference to the earth: Wisd. ii^^: ou y=P iQTt^pet
f)
"^^^
[e^] d[x6pcpou
uXt]<;.
Jn. 17':
r.gh
id:
Acts 17":
xAvxa
ev auTw.
2.
(280 a^Oc:
tyji;'
The firmament,
"vriq
hix<x
'Zi[t.ri[i.i'/r,q,
xal vfiq
[ikv
'Aclaq,
5e Eupoixriq y.aXoufxevTjq.
?S<bv
Deut.
4I': xal
[li)
dyai^l^aq
elq
ttjv cieXTjvrjv
ToO oupavou
xpoaxuvrjo-nq
XaTpeuqfjq auxolq, 2
dxivst^JLEv
Kupioq
HI
133 (14).
2-^: ^Gdvcp
The world
xbv
x6a[ji.ov.
of
humanity: Wisd.
3:
etq
Rom.
51*
exel
xox;
xptvel
Gebq xbv
if.6Q[).ov.
See also
^ Sl
Jn.
3i. " i
Rom.
11".
4.
The
sinful world,
Cor.
71":
Jn.
31-
"
151'.
The mode
^.o
of life
which
i
is
characterised
by
as obstacles
x6aiJi.(j>.
ou
4*.
s^jloI
xdy^
4*
2^^
Jas.
i"
The phrase
and
Col.
2' ".
x6atxou occurs in
its earlier
Instances of
out, the nearest approximation being perhaps in Wisd. 7'^ e(Blvat aOaxaatv
x6a[ji.ou
xda^oq
is
used in the
its
first
sense
meanings.
open to suspicion.
for the
2T0IXEIA TOY
1.
KOSMOT
71',
515
viz.,
the universe.
find in
it
a reference to the fact that the Mosaic law not only fixes
sacred
days and periods by the movements of the heavenly bodies, but contains many commands pertaining to physical matters; in a similar sense by
Holsten; by Neander {Planting and Training, Bk. Ill, chap. 9; Bk. VI, chap, i) with reference to material elements in both Judaism and heathen-
ism (he makes no mention of the heavenly bodies), and by various others
with varying specific application.
2.
The meaning
attested for
(s'zoixela
t.
by Justin Martyr,
in Gal.
et
x6a[jL.
and
Col.
commentaries on those
if
they should adopt the Jewish observance of days "For before, he says, ye were deemed worthy of
by nature
now [the Master, Christ, has freed you from this error; and I do not know how you are going back into the same error. For when ye
keep Sabbaths and new moons and the other days, and fear the transgression of these ye are like those who deify the elements." Theodoret on Gal. 4. This interpretation generally adopted by the fathers has also
found wide acceptance in more recent times. Hilg. (Galaterbrief, pp. 66 ^.) holds to this interpretation, but v/ith the added suggestion that the apostle
is
thinking of the heavenly bodies as living beings, gods of the Gentiles and
in his
lives
and
of
Jewish
the
{cf. Deut. 4^^), which have an influence on the men, and which as heavenly bodies control the cycle So similarly Diels, Elementum, pp. 50/.; Bous. SNT.
p. 106
Jff.;
contra,
Kennedy,
St.
Paul
and
3.
24, 25,
60/.
The
whom
phenomena
Mt. Sinai being the evidence of their presence at the giving of the law) Zw. Br. Petrus u. Judas, pp. 263 f.; Everling, Die paulinische Angelologie und Ddmonologie, pp. 65^., with inclusion of the angelic powers to which the Jews were subjected and the deities of the Gentiles. Similarly, Dib. Gwt. pp. 78^., but with characterisation of the difference between this and the preceding view as unimportant. 4. The elements of religious knowledge, possessed by men: a description applicable both to the Gentile religion of the Galatians and to Judaism Under this term are mcluded ritual observances, but the before Christ. reference is not to them exclusively nor to them as ritual, but as elemenSpitta,
5l6
GALATIANS
So substantially Tcrt. {Adv. Marc. V 4) Hier. tary, adapted to children. Erasm. Calv. Wies. (but with reference to O. T. only) Mey. Ell. Ltft. Sief.
et al.
The
intermediary between
belief to
No
a large extent.
He
in
numerous
"principalities
and powers."
He
heathen gods, though denying their deity; quite probably he identified them with the "principalities and powers." Thus they played for him an important part in the religion of the Gentiles. In Judaism,
real existence to the
the angels had a place in that the law was given through them; and though they are not represented as hostile to God or Christ, they might be thought of as such in the sense that they, or the law which came through them, were in rivalry with Christ. It is also true that atoix^lcc was very
also,
widely used of the elements of the physical world, and that there was a
tendency to extend
this use
to the parts of
the world in a looser sense, including the sea and the sky, day and night.
also, in
aioix^loc.
other writers
who antedated
Before de-
was
to
any
the physical world, or the heavenly bodies, or to any spirits which inhabited
them, that Paul referred, the following facts must be considered: 1. Precisely the phrase toc cTotxsIa toO x6a[j,ou has not been observed
elsewhere than in the two passages in the Pauline epistles.
Neither Sap.
7'
have just this phrase, nor furnish more than a suggestion as to the meaning of the Pauline expression. Nor can it be assumed to be identical with the xa crrotxeia of the philosophers or the to: oupavta cro'-xsta of Justin Martyr. The decisive word as to the meaning of Paul's phrase must be found, if at all, in Paul himself. 2. There is no clear evidence that xa axotxela had in Paul's day come to be used of deities or other like beings; for even if the evidence of Diogenes Laertius be supposed to prove the use of axotxelov in an astronomical sense in the first century, the fact that a star might be called axotxelcv and that a star might be worshipped does not give to crzoixeloy the meaning "deity"; as the fact that a cow is an animal and is worshipped does not make "animal" mean "god." While, therefore, ta axoix^la tou x6a[xou might mean
nor Orac. Sib.
2'^^;
8'", nor
Manetho
4^^*
it
means the
spirits that
dwelt in or con-
heavenly bodies has but indirect and slender support. 3. The use of toc crrotxsta in v.' as synonymous with xa. ax. x. xoa[x. of V.' suggests that probably the emphatic element of the phrase is conveyed
by
oxocxeia-
This
is
xal Tcxwxti-
Cf. also
Heb.
confirmed by the addition of the adjectives daOeW) 51^ in which the axoix^la are depreciated because
The context
and
of the
synonymous expression
in
2:toixeia
V.', esp.
tot kosmot
517
by the
/,6c[xou,
SeoouXwixevot (v.^)
and the
idol-worshippers.
5.
See in com. ad
loc.
xd:
on the reference
axotxeTa
toG
The
tacit
assumption that
y.oatAou,
to
which the
is,
which they were on the point of returning, is unwarranted. to be assumed that the phrase has the same meaning in both
entirely possible that
it is
It
indeed,
cases,
but
it is
and
now
in
danger of returning.
and Dibelius that because v.* affirms that the Galatians were in bondage to gods that by nature are not such, therefore the axoix^'ioc to which v.' speaks of them (and the Jews) as being in bondage must be personal beings, gods, is without good foundation. The same fact may be, and often is expressed both in personal and impersonal terms. Does it follow from Rom. 61^ and " that 6 t6tco<; StBa^^q
of Everling, Bousset,
is God? Especially way of illustration to
The contention
is
it
the aTotxsIa are personal because of the previous lxiTp6xou<; xal o{xov6tJLouq
than that
v6^oq
is
With
the recognition of this fact and of the absence of any reference to spirits
in this connection the chief support of Everling's
7.
view
falls to
the ground.
On
Td;
vTjxtot in v.^
with
6xb
so, but the whole passage from 3" to 4'', if not also to 4^ is permeated with the thought that the Jewish system which the Galatians are being urged to take up is imperfect, adapted to childhood, and the whole purpose of the argument is to dissuade the Galatians from accepting this system on the ground that it is childish, fitted, like their old idol-worship,
Not only
epistle, it
appeals
The
adjectives daOevii
and xrwxii have no appropriateness as applied and but little with reference to the physical elements
an
full
The mention
of days,
v.^"
these periods
Col.
2' "0
is fixed.
by whose movements the recurrence of The mention of meat and drink in the context of
But
this
latter
5i8
apply to Gal.
4''
GALATIANS
that
^ as the planetary explanation will not apply to Col. 28- '". is common to both, and is emphasised in Col., is that the
The element
GToix^loc represent an imperfect type of teaching; in Gal. described as temporary and ended by the coming of Christ, in Col. as proceeding from men (i<- i')While, there(v.'), and also as temporary and abolished in Christ it is possible that in Gal. Paul has reference to the heavenly bodies as, fore,
on the one
side,
by
it is
the same in both cases, and in both cases has reference to the elementary
and imperfect teachings of religion. 10. Aside from the debatable question of the meaning of xa ct. t. x6c:ix. it is entirely clear that the things which Paul was dissuading the Galatians from accepting were, in fact, requirements of the law; as those from which
he dissuaded the Colossians were dogmas of religion urged in the name of Judaism or some system of kindred spirit. To find the ground of the
description of obedience to
in a
them as a bondage to xd axotxsta toO x6qxou remote and unsuggested connection between them and the heavenly
bodies, or the physical elements of the universe, or the spirits of these elements, when the phrase is directly applicable to them in a sense appro-
priate to
usage,
direct,
is
to substitute a long
and suggested by the context and sustained by contemporary and circuitous course of thought for a short,
and obvious one. While, therefore, the discovery of convincing evidence that crotxeTa was in current use as a designation of the heavenly bodies conceived of as
living beings, or of spirits that inhabit all existences,
that
it
was
it.
on the basis
against
Tert.
Tou
of new evidence, and even then the contextual evidence is The evidence as it stands favours the simple view proposed by and advocated by Erasm. Th. Crem. Ltft. Sief. et al. The words
x6c7^ou
are
{cf.
humanity
Col.
most naturally understood as referring to the world of 2, xapdBoaiv dcvOpwxtov, and 2'^, ivx&Xixa-za xal 8iBaa-
xaXiaq Twv dvGpwTcwv), yet, in view of the inclusion of the law in the content of the phrase, not as a genitive of source, but of possession, the whole expression meaning "the rudimentary religious teachings possessed
by the race."*
is rather infrequently used in the sense of elementary teachings, very common, seems to necessitate understanding to. <jt. t.k. as in some sense physical or related to the physical sense, the interpretation most consonant with the evidence would be to understand <n. in that loose and inclusive sense in which it is employed in Orac. Sib. as including both the physical constituents of the world, and the sky
If
and stars. To the a-voix^la. in this sense, the Jews might be said to be enslaved in the ordinances pertaining to physical matters, such as food and circumcision, and also as the context suggests in the observance of days fixed by the motions of the heavenly bodies, while the bondage of the Gentiles to them would be in their worship of material images and heavenly
bodies.
'ArAHH
XXI.
I.
519
'ArAOAQ
used in
AND
'ArAHH.
from Homer down,
signify-
The verb
dtyaTcAw
is
classical writers
ing with reference to persons, "to be fond of," "to love," "to desire"; with
reference to things, "to be contented with," "to take pleasure in."
If
we
it
appears that
more or
less
by the word:
(a)
"to
admire," "to approve," "to recognise the worth of," "to take pleasure in,"
(b)
(c)
benefit."
The
otc
first
330B, C, yet blended with or shading into the second: toutou evexa
^v
S' eydj,
pio'.
Bo^aq
ou acpdSpa iyaTcav
ol
to:
ih xoXu 0? av
Tat
aijTd:.
^^j
auTol XTTjacovxac"
ol xotYjxal
Se xTTja(i;i.evoi StxX^
/.al ol
to:
ol
aXXoi
dccxd:!^ov-
waxep yap
TauTf)
xa auTwv xotTQ^xara
xspl
dcyotxwci
6>g
ts
Btj
xal
ol
xpTOtJi-ocTtaa^evot,
xgr^'^a-zoi.
ttjv
The
third element
present,
at
all
by suggestion
in the
words xal
xaxspsq
ToCig
izixlla.q
There
is,
element of meaning in the word as used by non-biblical writers of the preChristian period.
II. In the Lxx dyaxdw translates several Hebrew words, but in the great majority of cases (about 130 out of 160) the Kal of anx, which is also
by
(ptXiw.
ans
is
used with
much
the
same
Thus,
e. g., it is
used of the
of passion
2 Sam. 131' *; of the love of Sam. 18^- ' 1*; of God's love for Israel, Deut. 4" Hos. ii^; of the love of men for God, Ex. 20* Deut. 6* ii^; of the love of men for material things, Hos. 9I; and much more frequently for the love of immaterial things, good or evil, such as righteousness or peace, and their opposites, Ps. 4^ (2)
prominent,
a leader,
i
husband for a wife. Gen. 29i8' ^2; and desire of possession is friend for friend and of a people for
ii7
(6)
It
is
Hebrew
word enter
in
named
the several elements varying in the various instances very greatly, even
some cases
The element
for
of
men
for
women,
men
for
men, of men
In the case
God, of
men
for righteousness, or
even of
God
men.
becomes worship, adoration, or at least approaches this; in the case of friends, it involves mutual admiration; when it is goodness that is loved, it is the object of approval and delight. The desire to possess is likewise usually present; in a gross form in such a case as 2 Sam. 1$^-* Hos. 91; of an elevated type in the love of men for
of the
love of
men
for
God
it
520
righteousness.
GALATIANS
The
desire to benefit can not, of course, be included
it
when
be said to be driven out by desire to possess in such a case as 2 Sam. 13'-^ in the case of men's love for God it becomes desire to serve the person loved (Deut. ii. "); in the case of God's love for men and in such injunctions as Lev. 19I8. z* Deut. ioi the
is is the prominent element. In the N. T. usage of dyazdo) the same elements appear, the word being used of personal friendship where the element of admiration, usually
the object
impersonal;
may
desire to benefit
III.
accompanied with desire to benefit, is prominent (Mk. 10" Lk. 7* Jn. 11* 13"); of God's attitude towards Jesus, where approval is evidently the chief element of the thought and the word approximates the meaning of exX^yw, " to choose " (Jn. 3'^ Eph. i^); of the love of God for men of good character^ where the meaning is much the same save in degree of emphasis (2 Cor.
9O; of the love of God and of Christ for even sinful men (Jn. 3 is Gal. 220 Heb. i2 I Jn. 4^^^), where benevolence, desire to benefit, is the chief element; of the love which men are bidden to have for God and for Christ, and
of Christ's love for God, in which admiration is raised to adoration, and includes readiness to serve (Mt. 22" Jn. 1415, 21. 31 Rom. 8^8 i Cor. S' i Jn. 4"") of the love which men are bidden to have for one another, even their enemies, in which the willingness and desire to benefit is prominent, and in
;
falls into
22" Jn.
things,
13'^e
Rom.
13 B.
Eph.
5^5. =
Jn. 2>o);
and
Jn.
2^^).
cptXico,
it
is
may
two terms have a certain common area of be used almost interchangeably, yet in general
another, while ayaxdco) refers rather to love into which there enters an element of choice, and hence of moral character. It is consistent with this
distinction that dyaxdia)
(fiXib)
is
is
never used with the meaning "to kiss" (which rarely used of sexual love (but see 2 Sam. 13'. *
is
Cant.
31-',
s. V. (ptXelv;
and
cf.
mand
to
men
to love
God
into
or men,
may
between
of choice
with
IV.
21'.
cur from
Homer down,
appears
and certain others of its cognates which ocfirst in the Lxx, and thereafter is almost
wholly limited to biblical and Christian writers. Cf. M. and M. Voc. s. v. Lxx (can. bks.) it is used chiefly of love between the sexes (see 2 Sam. i3>5 and the eleven instances in Cant. but are these latter possibly due
In the
'ArADH
to
is
521
But in Wisd. and in Philo
it an allegorical interpretation of the book?). employed in a nobler sense; in Wisd. 3' and Philo, Quod deus immtit. 69 (14) C/. M. and M. of the love of God, and in Wisd. 6^ of the love of wisdom. Voc. s. V. This sense becomes the prevaiUng one in N. T., wholly displacing the use with reference to love between the sexes. Nor are there any clear
instances of ^7(^x75 in reference to ordinary human friendship, personal The desire to possess is also rarely present as a prominent eleaffection.
ment;
tion
Thes. 210 is apparently the only N. T. instance, and here appreciaperhaps equally prominent. On the other hand, dytixY] is used freely of God's approving attitude towards Jesus (Jn. 151 17"); of the love of God i S9 i jn. 31. and of Christ towards men, even sinful men (Rom. $"" * 8'^. 49. 10. 16); of the love which men are bidden to have for God (Lk. ii Jn. 5"
2
is
Jn.
2>-
15
418 53;
PauHne
epistles
is 2
Thes.
3');
and with
which
men have
or are
enjoined to have towards one another (Jn. is>' Rom. 12' 131" 14" i Cor. j^i. 2. '. <. 8. " 141). It must again be emphasised that these several ele-
from Lev. 19", follows the Lxx, and uniform habit of the biblical writers to use dyaxdo) rather than (ptXeo of the love which men are bidden to exercise towards their The verb in this passage and the noun in all the instances fellow men. occurring in this epistle (s'- " ") while including the element of apprecia-
The use of
is
tion, recognition of
worth, which
is
fundamental to
all
the meanings of
both verb and noun, evidently lay chief stress upon the desire and will to The verb in benefit, which issues in efforts for the well-being of another. Gal. 2" has essentially the same meaning and emphasis, but being used by
Paul of the love of Christ for himself, a confessedly sinful man, emphasises the element of benevolence.
still
further
It is love of this tj'pe, of which recognition of worth is the foundation, and desire to benefit the leading element, that Paul exalts in his remarkable panegyric in i Cor. chap. 13, and of which he says in Rom. 131" that love
is
5:
"/
INDEXES.
I.
Authors, ancient and modern, are cited in this list only when they are specially important or their opinions are quoted and discussed. Their names are printed in small capitals. Words in italic type are those which occur in the translation of the letter. A number in boldface type indicates a page
ordinary
on which the word is discussed. Words in type denote subjects referred to in the Epistle or in Appendix. the Commentary, including the Introduction and the Grammatical forms and syntactical usages are referred to only when they are regarded as for some reason specially important.
Roman
Abraham,
153, 155, I59. 162, 175, 180, 186, 208, 252; faith of, 153,
363/xa{,
ff.]
sons
also
nouns joined by
Accursed,
28,
30;
see
et freq.
"Cursed."
Accusative of content, 37, 138, 337.
Acts, chaps. 10, II, 15; 166; i823;
see Index III.
AsKWiTH, E. H.,
xlix.
cf.
226.
Autographic portions of
348.
Baptize, 203, 204/.
letters,
cf. xlii.
Bartlet,
cf.
140,
Antioch, 102;
cf.
78,
loi,
104/.,
116/.
Aorist epistolary, 348 resultative, 76, 351; participle of coincident
: ;
475/letter,
Benedictions of Paul's
361/.
action, 69;
cf.
218; participle of
ff.
Bentley,
R., 260.
Apostle, 2,3, 54, 60, 363 /. Apostles, the Twelve indirectly re-
Blessing, 175.
ferred to, 3, 71, 86/., 89; cf. 94; attitude towards Gentiles, 116^.
BoussET, W.,
523
524
INDEXES
Covenant, 178/., 182/. (226), 257,
Brethren, 8, 35, 36, 177, 236, 264, 267, 286, 291, 325, 362.
496/.
Creation, a new, 355 Cremer, H., 501.
/.,
356.
213.
Cross, 145/., 287, 349, 354; cf. 173. Crucify, crucifixion, 135 /., 143,
291.
173;
see also
"Ac-
in;
see
cursed."
Peter.''
xxxi, xxxiii,
Damascus,
gS;
cf.
58.
267.
Christ, 18, 24, 32, 62, 123, 124, 125,
Death of Christ,
35/.,
39/.,
208,
329,
248,
270,
272,
ff-\
\
\
275, see
319, also
143, 145, 173/., 354. Deceive, 330 /., 339 /. Deliver, 13, 168, 219.
Desire, 297, 299/., 300, 319.
398/.
Christ Jesus, 83, 120, 123, 202, 207, 242, 279 (319, 349 /.); see also " Jesus Christ,"
Chronology of Paul's
life.
Hi
{cf.
Church, 10, 44 /., 62 ff., 417 ff.; churches of Galatia, 10; of Judea,
45/m
62 #.
Cilicia, 62.
quarters
of, in
Jerusalem, 54; in
230),
75
/.,
79
/.,
91, 93
/.,
96,
{cf.
279/., 286, 349, 351 I; 355Companions of Paul when he wrote the letter, 8 /. Conative use of verbs, 30/., 32/.,
45, 64, 115, 351.
510/.
Ellicott, C. J., 192, 333, 353, 510. Emasculation, 289/. Enmity, 304, 306.
Envying, 304, 310, 323, 325. Epistolary aorist, 348.
Epistolary plural,
9.
EVERLING,
INDEXES
Faith, 64,
525
jf.;
120
/.,
123,
138,
147,
see also
"Text
xlii.
196, 198
/.,
201
/.,
277, 279
/.,
345/m475#.
Faithfulness, 312, 316.
41 after
;
'ic(aTt(;,
121.
5,
God,
11, 15,
(82, 86),
93/m 96/.,
103 /., Ill, 119, 159/., 175,206/.; Paul's preaching to, 147, 156, 311letter to the
/.,
297, 300,
/,
Genuineness of the
Galatians, Xxv
ff.
Flesh
492/. and
Glorying, 332
/.,
35i
/-.
354-
116/.
God,
5, II,
190,
192,
202,
216,
221,
Fricke, G. a., 190/. Fritzsche, K. F. a., 74. Fruit of the Spirit, 312 /.
Fulfil,
God: word
for, omitted, 19, 49, 94, 152, 282; teaching of the letter
is
293
ff.,
329
/.
concerning: he
one,
190;
is
83/.
Galatia, 10.
384 Jf-, esp. 387, 390 jf.; object of Abraham's faith, 153; made a covenant with Abraham and promises to him, which are not annulled by
the law, 180-186; justifies the
Gentiles
Galatia, xvii
ff.,
xxv/.,
number
1
of
ff.,
237, xxi
by
faith,
159;
and no
cf.
239
ff.,
245
/.;
churches
of,
man by works
of law, 165;
Galatians, 143.
ff.',
ff.',
world to deliver under law, 216-219; Christ's gift of himself for our sins, in
accordance with his
will, 15; set
of Paul
and
/.;
questions at issue,
ineness
Ivii ff.
genuff.',
him, and revealed his Son in him, 49 ff.', wrought for the
apostleship both of Peter
and
integrity,
of,
Ixv
and
reminiscences
from,
Ixviii;
and quotations
526
INDEXES
Imperfect tense, 45, 104, 107.
to
In Christ (Jesus),
202
(cf.
203),
207
/.,
279
(cf.
because of Paul's work, 65; called the Galatians into the grace of Christ, 18/.;
cf. 49; jointly with Jesus Christ source of grace and peace, 10/.; accounts those who are in Christ as his sons, 202; and sends the
ish Christians
283#.).
Inherit, 267, 310.
Interpolations
(possible)
in
the
Spirit
of
his
Son
into
their
259
/,
511.
who do
the
works of the flesh will not inkingdom, 310 /.; invoked as witness that Paul
herit his
61;
eternal
cf.
71, 107.
Jerome,
61.
Gospel
Jerusalem, 54, 58, 67, 261, 263. Jerusalem: Paul's visits to, 58 /.,
67, 115;
church
116;
cf 99.
Jesus, 319, 359, 392, 394,
Grace, 10, 18/., 49, 94/., 140/., 276/., 361, 423/.; of Christ, 19; of God, 140.
Jesus Christ,
5, 11, 41, 143, 175^ 196, 354, 361, 393, 394, 395/.; see also "Christ" and "Christ
Gregory, C.
R., Ixxv.
steivards,
Jesus."
Guardians and
Hagar, 258
/.
211
ff.
Jesus Christ: the Son of God, 51, ' 138/., 216, 221 born of woman,
;
Hand, giving of as a pledge, 94 ff. Haussleiter, J., 121. Heathen deities, Paul's idea of,
22-jf.
born under law, 216 /.; died, 139, 140 (cf. 11), on the cross,
143,
145
(cf
168-175); raised
345
/,
II /.
(cf.
139); "calling"
19; the gospe!
not ascribed
Idolatry, 304, 306.
of,
to,
24; Paul a servant of, 32; is the content of the revelation b>
INDEXES
which Paul received
his gospel,
527
an occapersecution, 349, and the
41-43, 50, 51; sent forth from God, 216, to deliver them that
are under law, 219, that they
sion of
ground
sons
of
God
is
receive
his
Spirit, 221;
he
196
/.;
cf.
202; basis of
135; he
participated in
by Paul,
Jews: religion of, 46; attitude towards Gentiles, lix, 104. John, 94. JosEPHUS: use of geographical
terms, xxxiii; use of
Joy, 312, 314Jubilees, doctrines of the
158.
StaGTQXf^,
137;
499.
of,
gift of
himself for men, 139 {cf. 11); his death evidence that righteousness
is
book
Judaisers,
see
"Opponents
/.;
of
Paul."
delivered
men from
the
Judea, 62
/.,
435
churches
of,
62/.
Justify, 119, 123/,, 159, 165, 201,
came a curse for us, 171 ^., in order that we might receive the
blessing of the Spirit, 176; the
275,
460/.
law a means of bringing men to him, 200; by baptism into him they acquire his standing, 203;
in
ff.
him
all
ished,
206
those
who
are his
Lake, K., 1, 509. Law, 119/., 123/., 132/., 140, 147, I5i 163/. (esp. 170), 182, 184,
187, 192
ff.,
ham, 208; they who have the Spirit of the Son recognise God as Father, 223; relation of Gentile
443
ff-
believers
to
Christ
de-
Law: curse
be justified in
/.; of
Jewish
him
neither
112
ff.;
to be ful;
filled by Christians, 293 /. the law of the Christ, 329; see also
ing through love, 279 /.; they who are his have crucified the
flesh,
443/.
Leaven, 283. Legalists in the early church, see
319;
the
fulfil
Galatians
ex-
horted to
"Opponents
of Paul."
5^^
Letters (epistles), forms
ancients, lo, i6 /,
Life, eternal, 339, 343.
of,
INDEXES
among
quotations from, 123, 153, 159,
164,
166,
167,
/.,
173,
181,
252',
LiGHTFOOT,
129, 288,
296.
J. B., XXxiii,
6l, II5,
Opponents
75,
509 /. Live, III, 134, 136 /., 166/., 321; by the Spirit, 321; cf. 136 /.,
297/., 302.
77 ff., 82, 107, 156 ff., 246,' 281-289; questions at issue be-
Ivii
/,,
LOMAN, A.
D., Ixx.
Participles, 69,
75,
103,
199,
354, 361,
115,
119,
151,
172,
/.,
314,
519/.
C.
McCowN,
C,
McGiFFERT, A.
Magic, 144.
513.
li/.,
241.
218, 228, 253, 255/., 275, 281, 331, 345, 353Parties (dissensions), 304, 309. Paul, I, 272. Paul: chronology of his life, lii,
19,
206.
Manen, W.
Marks
Mediator,
C. van, Ixx.
of Jesus, 359 /.
i8() f.
him, 41/., 49
jf.;
abandonment
conversion,
xxxix.
Ixix.
sojourn
62;
in
MoFFATT,
J., xxxii,
Syria and
second
Muratorian canon,
Mutilate, 288.
Nabateans, 57. Negatives with participles, 229. North-Gaiatian view: stated, xxiii; advocates of, xxiv; conclusion
concerning, xiiv.
Galatians, 8 /. preacher of the gospel to the Galatians, 25 /., 30, 143/-, 147, 237/., 310/.; illness in Galatia, xxix, 237
;
/.;
number
21,
them
40, 43, 70 89, 120, 186, 209, 228, 282, 298, 311, 352.
45
/,
3,
24/-, 75. 77 ff., 82, 107, 156/., 246, 281-289; persecuted, 286;
ff.
Old Testament: Paul's interpretation of, 159 ff., 166 /., 173 ff., 181 #., 253/. (esp. 256), 268;
/.
rela-
tion to Barnabas, 69, 94, 108/.; cf. xlii; to Titus, 69; relation to
Peter, 94-98, 102-113; apostle-
INDEXES
hip, 1, 2, 3;
8,
cf.
529
M.,
xxxii,
li,
Ramsay, W.
Religion,
24, 156,
62,
66,
93,
372 /.;
sence
of, Ixiv.
Rendall,
.,5.
11,32,34.51,123,135-139;
199,
433/-
I53
/.
WS>
277
/.,
460
ff.
the church, 73, 113; care for ;he poor, 99 /. revelation expe;
iences, 41,
jgy,
14,
SCHMIEDEL,
Scripture,
scripture,
see
"Old
Testa-
Paul's use
ment."
Seed, 180
ff.,
authentication of
his
his
letters
by
own hand,
436/.
dagogue, 200
rsecution: of Christians by Paul, 44/., 64; of Paul by others, 286; of Paul's opponents, 349 /.
'ter,
127/.
cf.
32, 34.
SODEN, H. VON, Ixxxi/. Son of God, sons of God, 138 /., 202, 216 /., 221
394, 404
ff-
49, 51,
/.,
224,
larisees,
Josephus's account
of,
cf.
252, 267.
SouTER,
A., Ixxiv.
xxiii;
xxiv; conclusion
184/.,
concerning, xliv.
264.
147 /.,
151,
ualitative
use
of
nouns,
see
265, 277/., 297, 300, 302, 312/., 321/., 325 (328), 339, 342, 361/.,
"Nouns used
34
qualitatively."
/.
530
Spiritual, 325, 327, 489.
INDEXES
Tradition, 46
jf.
Steck, R.,
Ixx.
xveu[jLa,
1.
Turner,
Syria, 62.
Twelve, the attitudetowards Paul, 91, 97; Paul's relation to them, 3, 38, 58 ff.', standing in the
early church, 71,
lix /.,
86/,
89, 91
/,
Tertullian:
516,518.
his
N.
T.
canon,
Uncircumcision, gi ff., 279, 355. Uncleanness, 304 /. Unity of the church, Paul's concern for, 73, 113.
Text of the
Ixxiv
ff.,
88/,
114, 122, 139, 143, 176, 183, 189, 193, 194, 208, 216, 223, 231, 243,
of the
259/,
324,
265, 330,
270/, 275,
335, 344,
K,
73, 128.
311,
151, 163.
ff.
Zahn,
80/.
xxxvii,
xl
/, 57,
79,
90,
128/., 326.
II.
words discussed
in the Introduction or
the words in the Epistle, and a few important Appendix. The lists of occur-
indicated. rences in the Epistle are complete, except when otherwise When examples of special usages are given, the completeness of the A number in bold-face type indicates lists of these is not guaranteed. a page on which the word is discussed.
c,
223
/.
dX>vY]Xa)v,
'A^padtx,
162, 175,
125/., 195,
436/. 127/.
with subj.,
361
/.
av,
with
189.
520/.
"Ayap, 258
dyvodo), 62.
ayo), 302.
dSeXqjot',
(bis).
dvayxa^w, 75/., Ill, 115. 349; always of the attempt to subject Gentile Christians to the law.
dvi:0ixa
8,
35, 36,
and
dvaX{ffX,a>,
297.
ToG xup^ou, 60
/.
dcBtxiw,
237.
53-
71
aYpecjts,
304, 309.
426/.
431/.
264.
102.
3,
iv8iaTTQ[i,i,
304, 305.
d'vOpcoTCoq,
/.,
147, 151.
119,
274,
325, 339;
xard
d'vOptoTCOv,
182, 184.
300.
'AvTCOXS'.a, 102.
244.
55.
dXXdaao), 250.
dXXTjyop^o), 253,
254/.
531
275-
53^
dtxo6vr]o-xw,
INDEXES
132,
1
40.
Ytvtoaxo), 94,
41, 43,
YvtopfCo), 35.
YP(i[X[xa,
347
/.
axoxdxTO), 288,
289
/.
axoXasx^avo), 220.
dizopioi,
250.
YUVT),
216.
Scixvo),
297.
A(x\xaav.6q, 58.
Ss,
32
(bis).
206.
tinuative, 49, 71, 102, 137, 138, 165, 208, etc.; resumptive, 182,
211, 297; untranslated, 64; variant reading for yi^p, 36, etc.
Bsxaxevxe, 59.
ScxaTeaaapec;, 67.
237, 238.
daQevqq, 230.
auxdq, intensive, 99, 351; personal,
6, 38, 49, ei freq.
icpopft^o),
Se^tdq
Seopiat,
8tSw[JLt,
94, 95 /.
236. 242.
SIxoiAa',
SfiXot;,
Std:,
dc^OplXTQ,
291, 292.
165.
3, 5, 6, 41, 49, 67,
a'xptq,
189, 211.
with gen.,
22,7.
178/., 182/.
(226), 257,
^aatXeca
Geotj,
310, 311/.
/.
496/.
Bcaxovoq, 125/.
BtapiivG),
^aoxai'vo),
143
85.
Staxdiaaa),
Btacpipti),
189, 190.
297.
87, 211.
264.
StSiijxG),
S{S(i)[i,t,
40.
II,
94,
193,
196,
243;
FaXaxia, lo;
c/.
460
Jf. /.,
FaXaTixdq, xxxi
jf.
140, 153
193, 277/.,
460 #.
C'.xat6(i),
et
119,
123
{bis),
124, 159,
460/.
267.
fi'^oq,
46.
126, 171, 175, 182,
192,
44, 64, 265, 286, 349. 72, 86, 89, 94, 96, 330,
ylyoyucci,
Soxi(o, 71,
331.
INDEXES
SoxoOvTsq,
96.
SoxttJi,al^(o,
533
epya
v6;jlou),
1
o\,
71,
72, 86,
89,
94,
{cf.
55,
84,
et
freq.
332.
S6^a, 16.
Bo^c4i;o>,
65.
246.
10,
lxx>vT]afa,
227
/.,
exXuw, 334/.
exxiTCXO),
276
241
/.
8ouX6w, 215.
Suvatxat, 193.
86va[jLt<;,
exxTUO),
/.
eXsoq, 357.
IXeuOepc'a, 82,
151 /. 243.
SuvaT6(;,
eXeueepoq, 206,
252
(bis),
263, 267
140/.
120/., 272, 285, 300, 325,
rel.
l>.eu6e?6o),
270.
"EXk-qv, 75/.,
Idv, 25,
206/.
130. 164.
[XT)
exceptive, 120/.
e[J.6?,
339syefpo), 6,
e^jLTcpoaOsv,
43, 347III.
7/.
ev,
sYxpaTsta, 312,
eyti,
317
/.
18, 20, 43, 49, 62, 65, 70, 83, 136/., 151. 275, etfreq.; ev xupfq), 283 ff.; ev XptaTW ('iTfjooO), 62,
202
{cf.
203),
207
vB6a>,
/.,
279
{cf.
283 ^.).
ivapxo^iai,
148/.
eOvoq,
2, 53,
203/.
el,
119, 159 (bis), 160, 175. 22, 30, 32, 60, III, 124,
130,
heaxdiq,
3,
432/.
140,
149,
184,
193,
208,
224,
eveuXoy^ojjLa;, 162.
243, 286, 297, 302, 321, 330, 354; ei (J.T1 exceptive, 22, 60, 354.
etSov, 60, 91, 109,
hijin, 270.
i
evi,
206
(ter).
347.
hioLMibc,,
evtJTTQ[JLt,
232, 234,
see eveaTox;.
149
84.
{bis),
234. 215.
evxax^d), 344.
evxoxTW, 281.
e!
el[il,
22, 24,
freq.;
i^fi-sOa,
svwx'.ov, 61.
elxov, III.
elpTjvTQ,
eiq,
424/96, 97/m
i^oLigiM, 13.
181, 190
(bis),
241.
1
293-
lxaYTeX(a,
1,3,
84/.,
h',e,
534
ixa-(^iXko[i.(xi, 189.
iTCctTa, 58,
INDEXES
'C,r]\6(ji,
246
(/er),
247.
62, 67 /.
^Y]X(i)TY)q,
!;y3t4(o,
46, 47.
exf,
32, 124.
tiuy6(;,
Ilu'^Tj,
270. 283.
283.
299, 300.
i;u;ji.6(i),
^wTQ,
339, 343.
extxaxapaToq,
ext(JLiva),
64,
73.
59.
6xiOTp^?(i),
230.
348
(v. 1.).
IxcxeXio),
148/,
ixiipOTZOq, 211,
212
cf.
265.
_^.
345.
spyo'^*
332;
epya
v6;xou,
II9,
120,
OiXri[ia, 15.
123
lpTfj[xoq,
163; epyaTfj;
aapx6q, 303 /.
epc0ta,
eptq,
304, 307.
202,
216,
221,
Epxetxac,
180.
exepo?,
e-rt,
19,49, 94i 152, 282; without art., 88 /., 134, 202, 224/., 227
(bis),
229
{bis),
(ter),
Oep(i;o>,
339
341, 344.
OfjXu,
64, 237.
eu;x6q,
422
/.
272, 273.
eOe^wq, 53.
euXoyico, 162.
333/., 344/.
273.
euXoyia, 175.
euxpoaoix^d), 349, 350.
6up{ax(i),
eu(ppa(v(i),
261, 263.
125.
'Ir]aouq,
'Itqjouc;
264.
II,
41,
143,
e'xOpa,
304, 306.
175,
196,
354.
361,
393,
394,
ex9p6q, 244.
e'Xw,
395 #
Tva,
167, 321.
^r]\oq, 304,
307.
300, 349.
INDEXES
Iou8a(a, 62
'IouBait;(i>,
535
/.,
435
KiXtxfa, 62.
xXT]povoti.lto,
xXT]povoiJi.(a,
'louSa'ixd)!;,
267, 310.
184, 185/., 503.
'IouSaIo<;,
'IouBaiffiJL6<;,
x>.Y)pov6^oq,
208
/.,
211,
224 /.,
'Ijaix, 264.
'Iapa?]X Tou OsoD,
laTOpIo),
laX^d),
6,
503-
357.
yjkiixa,
61.
58
/.
xotXfa, 49.
279, 281.
94.
'lowtvT]!;,
94.
xoTudo), 234.
xoxoq, 359.
et freq.;
meaning
"and," 8
223.
73.
xpssxd:vvu[jn, 1
355.
xpt^a, 285.
%aig6q, 232,
233
/.,
344, 345-
xaX6q, 344.
xxbiq, 355, 356. xuptoq, II, 60, 211, 283, 354, 361, Christ ex393, 399 #; refers to cept in 211; with art., 60, 354,
357, 358/.
361.
xup6to, 178, 179.
xa?S(a, 221.
xap'7c6^,
312
/.
xwixoc;,
304, 310.
147, 176.
xaxa, with gen., 192, 300 (bis), 318; with ace, 15, 37, 44, 69, 7o, 7i,
102,
XapL^civto, 88,
Adro), 28,
no,
cf.
265;
37,
xxxiv;
103,
xaxd:
avOptoxov,
182.
102,
143;
^^^^
aapxa,
XoY^^otJiai,
153. 154-
252, 265;
xax' {S(av,
71/.
xaTa5ouX6a), 83.
xaxaXuo), 130, 131-
243.
345.
325, 327 /.
lJLa>Xov,
lx,av9civco,
263;
147.
tJi>a>^>^ov
SI,
229, 230.
xaxaaxoxdo), 82 /.
xaxeaOt'o),
297.
335, 336
/.
^apxupeo), 243.
tJLapxupo'tiai,
;xI8t],
xaxYix^o),
274.
xxxi.
304, 310.
cf.
332
/.
ff.
189, 190.
txexi,
70 (97
/.),
286.
536
(JieTaT(6T;u,t,
INDEXES
i8, 19.
oUeloq, 345 /.
otxoSoixito,
li.iX9iq,
iXTQ,
248.
with hortatory subj., 323, 344; imper., 270, 339; verb omitted, 291; with opt. ([I'tj
ofxov6[xo?,
130/. 211 f.
with
T^votTo),
126,
192,
354;
with
178.
ovTox;, 193.
bTZQioq, 87.
a verb
oxwq, 13.
6p0oTCo5sa), 109,
no.
with participle,
zi ^xtj
opoc, 258.
oq,
and
330/.
99, 130, 138, 143, 164, 181, 189, 230, 248, 300, 310, 339; with eiv,
232, 233.
49, 263.
300, 339.
oarcq, 82,
IXTfJTTgp,
[xtxpoq,
283.
99.
304; with
oTt,
285.
HVT][jLoveua),
ti.6vov
[xop?)6w,
248.
ou
lAUXTTJpfCw, 339,
340.
[J-TJ,
267, 297.
75, 84,
206
{his),
211
f.,
215.
v6ixoq,
147,
163,
164,
165,
167,
87, 89,
22
/.
275
351
/.,
293
/.,
302,
318,
329,
/., 445 ff-; with art., 164, 167, 168, 182, 187, 192, 200, 274,
o'jpotvdt;,
oCixe,
o5to<;,
229, 261.
ouTwc;,
adverb of intensity,
18, 148;
man-
adverb, 293,
86,
et freq.
ner, 329.
ojxf. III, 114.
h<fZlkiTTiq,
274, 275.
with prepositional
o?eXov, 288.
6?eaX[x6q, 143, 243,
phrase, 75; prefixed to a sentence, 293; cf. 258 /.; with proper names and appellatives, 385,
392, 393, 394olSa, 119,
xa0T3[i,a,
319, 320/.
227/., 237.
{his).
INDEXES
xdX'.v,
537
28, 58,
/.,
(bis),
231
293,
294/.
xd:vTOTS, 246.
icapdt,
293.
xvcutxa, 147,
265, 277, 278, 297, 300 (bis), 302, 312, 313, 321
(bis),
xvsO^jLa
/.,
xapa^axTjc;, 130, 13 1.
xapaSt'Sotxi, 139.
342, 361,
aytov, first
486/.
appearance
xapaSoatg, 46, 47 /.
Tzagaka^il^iydi, 30, 38, 39.
488;
Tcveuixa Gslov,
487
/., xveO(j.a
05OU, 488.
xvsu[jLaTtx.6c;,
xot^o),
xo>.u<;,
xovYjp6q, 13.
without
art,,
123, 274;
with
plur.
without
xou, 243.
xpiaao), 310.
xpauTTj?, 312, 317, 325, 328.
T&axui, 149 /.
xaxifip, 5,
xpo, 54,
103,
198; with
inf.,
103,
223,224,384/.
198.
xaxptxoq, 46.
ITaOXoq,
xetOto,
I,
272.
xpoelxov, 310.
xpoepd), 28.
xpoeuaYYeXtL,o;ji,a'.,
xtp(it;a),
325, 329.
282, 283.
{v. /.).
xetpaayLdq, 241.
xeta'tJ-ovTQ,
159, l6o.
xepf,
13
46.
75, 272,
349, 351xeptTOixTf],
91 /., 93,
94, 96,
107,
325, 326 /. xpoXeyw, 310, 311. xpo; with ace, 54, 59, 84, 85, 86,
xpoXa[JL^cii:va>,
109,
(bis).
xpoaavaTfOrjijL'.,
%poaTlQ-(][i.i,
89
/.
347, 348.
188.
62,
88,
475 #
xpoCTwxov,
102;
xp6a(i)xov
103.
196,
198,
199,
201
(bis),
202,
239/.
475/-
230.
538
pi^yvu^c, 264.
INDEXES
TsXiw, 297.
TSTpax6atoi, 182.
237,
TfxTO),
zlq,
Ttq,
264.
/.,
297, 300
cidp5 xal
350
/.,
351
/,
492 #.;
IlAa,
53, 54.
257, 258.
ToaouToq, I49.
t6ts, 227, 265, 332.
TO'Jvavrfov, 91,
oxavSaXov, 287.
(jxoxlo),
325, 328.
axs(pa),
c%ip[iix,
339
iter); cf.
341.
/.,
TpsTq, 58.
180, 181
(6w)
189, 208,
505/.
(jTCOuSii^o),
99.
oTaupd?,
cf-
145
/.,
287,
349
/.,
354;
uloBecrfa,
220, 221;
cf.
226.
173-
ul6q,
224
ToCi
252, 267
;
\j\hq
264.
b ulhq
ajxou
/.,
(sc.
49,
51,
216
221/.;
oT^frt^a.
u\hq,
(0eoD)
applied to men,
510^.
202, 221, 224 (bis); 394, 404 ff.; ulol 'Appaa;x, 155; 156 /., cf.
CTTOtxio),
252, 267.
b[islq,
ufxet*;;
other
u'^iispoq, 351.
forms
sing,
and
plur. freq.
319.
with gen.,
auvej8{o),
1 03.
(juvT3Xtxt(iTTQ<;,
46.
ux6,
with
with gen., 37, 182, 229, 297; ace: uxb d:[xapT(av, I95;
oExov6{jloU(;,
21
v6[iov, 198,
ffUvoTotx^w,
135 /. 261 /.
uxb xatSaYwydv,
201
uxb
"zdc
ouvuxoxpfvotxac, 108.
Supfa, 62.
awixa, 359.
uxooriXXo), 107.
uxoaTpi(p(i),
58.
Tapijato, 24,
xaxii>><i,
285
(v. I.).
uxoTayT), 84.
18/., 20.
T6xv(ov,
249
ipavepdq,
303, 304.
304, 306.
264
(bis),
267.
<f(xp[i.av.l(X,
INDEXES
(peovito,
539
323, 325.
339, 342.
107, 234.
/.
(fo<pio[i.ai,
398/.
X?t(rub<; 'lT)aoOc;, 83,
qjopTt'ov,
333
283.
(fpevaxaT(i(i),
(ppov^o),
330, 331.
207, 242, 279; see also 122, 393, 394 #. and 'iTjaoOt; Xpiaxd?.
Xp6voq, 211.
(ppoupio),
(puXasati),
198.
351.
t;;EUO(iSe>.ipo(;,
tJ^euSoiJiat,
(pOpana, 283.
<p6atq,
(puVT^,
77, 78.
61.
250.
w, 143.
toBfvd),
248.
181, 236
(bis),
186.
28,
242, 293,
345caaxsp, 265.
fixne
312, 315.
123,
with
Xptaxd?,
244.
(iyeX^o),
272, 273.
III.
Lk.
Lk.
''
43.
6^,
6*-
411.
Gen.
cf.
1 315,
181
/.,
507.
366.
^s,
w.
);
157;
Lk. Lk.
390.
507.
io22,
412.
Lev.
i85, 167.
21-2
131.3
16',
1
.373. xxxi /.
xxxviii
ff.
Acts
823,
2^ 384.
54S 264.
2*.
Isa.
Hab.
Mt. Mt. Mt. Mt. Mt.
166/.
411.
43.
5 390.
II", 412.
16", 412.
27*
411.
Mk. i^, 412. Mk. I", 410/. Mk. 3", 411. Mk. 3^366, 378/. Mk. 3l^ 378. Mk. g\ 410/. Mk. 1332, 412. Mk. 14", 411.
Lk.
1^2,
Rom. jl7 433,472/. Rom. I'. S409. Rom. 2^2. 456. Rom. 2"-", 450/., 452. Rom. 2". 457Rom. 2", 454Rom. 3"- ^. 472. Rom. 3". 457. Rom. 41-6 "-".470/. Rom. 4"- '^ 507. Rom. 5", 456. Rom. chap. 7:441. Rom. 83ff 408. Rom. I0 403. Rom. 16^ 372.
,
I I I
I
412/.
413.
Lk.
Cor 9\ 370, 373. Cor 93fl 370. Cor 123 ,403. Cor 12=8, 379. Cor 15= A 370/.; Cor i5'S 409.
,
c/.
373,
540
Indexed;
2 Cor. 3\ 374. 2 Cor. 4^-6, 408.
2 Cor. 8", 373-
541
Jas.
i^',
Heb.
Rev.
7'''
".
8S loS 455-
''".471
2-,
375-
BS
^+91
.16
V.35